Feedback requested...

[Vice]

This thread is an opportunity to provide feedback on a possible future game project I may work on. At this point, I'm not certain I'll even attempt to develop another PC game, but I'd like to gauge some feedback on possible directions it could go, if it becomes feasible.

Please note: this thread is specifically for answering these questions. Limit your reply to one post to answer these questions. Please avoid replying with comments, discussions, or debates on particular points and opinions shared by others. Such posts will likely be removed as I intend to focus only on replies specific to these questions from each person. If you want to discuss or debate something related to these questions, please start separate threads for those discussions. I would recommend considering these questions for a while and collecting your responses over a period of time to give yourself sufficient time to include needed detail/specifics and to keep all content in one initial post. But you are welcome to edit your post if you want to add further detail/feedback to something. Just be aware that the more editing you do to an older post, the greater the chance I might miss it. So it's better if you take the time to reply with everything you want to comment on in your initial post. And if you'd prefer, you can e-mail me your response (starwraith.com > contact).


Questions:

1 - What kinds of changes, additions, or deletions, if any, would you like to see made to the multiplayer system? Keep in mind that the long term Evochron design structure of being able to transition from single player to multiplayer would likely be retained, so differences between the two modes will always generally be kept to a minimum as has been done in the past.

2 - Should saving game progress only be allowed at dock points such as stations and cities? If not, are there any other changes you would want to see in the saving system.

3 - Would you prefer a game that focused more on pure combat, exploration, trade, or include a relatively equal mix of these elements without any one particular element being a primary focus of the game?

4 - Would you like to see an extensive crafting system as a design priority? That is, many gameplay items (and maybe even a few secret ones) could be built using a pattern of materials/elements/commodities? If so, would it be worth the extended development time/delay to implement it?

5 - Should 'jump drives' continue with the current space folding point-to-point approach, or should they revert to simply high speed drives (as found in Arvoch Alliance)?

6 - Should Fulcrum Torpedoes remain in a SW3DG space-sim or should they be removed entirely?

7 - How would you like to see the combat systems changed (or not changed)? This includes weapon damage, firing rate, and range balances. Along the same lines, should missiles do more damage, less damage, have more range, or shorter range? Again, please be specific. And if there are systems where you don't want to see changes, make sure to list those as well.

8 - Would you like to see fairly realistic planet sizes be implemented (they would likely be about 500-1000% larger than they are now minimum, with each planet covering up to and beyond 5 sectors of the current scaling system each)? This would also require increasing the game's universe size significantly to accommodate the larger planets, so even every sector would probably be around 10X times larger in size. Details aren't required in this thread, that can be reserved for the other thread about planet scaling and in question 9 below (which doesn't necessarily relate to larger planet sizes).

9 - What kinds of things would you like to see added for planet-side options? Examples that are under consideration include automated farming equipment (that would work similar to current automated mining equipment), city/outpost construction, terraforming (installing atmosphere processors), transporting colonists to new cities/outposts (or at least protecting/escorting the ships that do), discovery and charting (with credit rewards), and surveying new worlds (with required equipment item(s)).

10 - Should terrain walkers remain a part of a SW3DG space-sim or would you prefer resources be devoted solely to focusing on spacecraft options/technology?

11 - Should piloting capital ships be added to such a game? If so, describe how you would like to see them be part of the -relevant- Evochron gameplay equation (ie lone wolf style mercenary approach, not 'table top' RTS or fleet micro-management).

12 - What changes/additions would you like to see in such a game's economy/market system relative to how EM's is set up now? Please be as specific as you can (items, trade locations, values, etc).

[Busch]

All right, Sir. Will do my best.

1. No changes recommended.

2. Current save game system is fine by me. Recommend keeping, or something alike.

3. The sheer beauty I see in the open approach you've instilled in your games, that which encompasses a range of viable options for character/role play, should be retained. Sir, you've provided Arvoch Alliance as the more 'pure combat' offering from the sw3dg stable. May I suggest keeping the 'next one' as open as what you seem to be thinking about in #4 and #9. I guess one of the questions to address is just what does a semi-retired mercenary do after conquering the universe - twice!

4. Crafting system - Yes! Design priority - not sure. The Weapons Lab works well enough now, for those special needs. Maybe crafting a 'better' Mantis? Or something along those lines. Building those items for #9 - colonizing/exploring.

5. Yes - please keep the warp drives.

6. I use the FT's for two purposes solely. As a high-value trade item, number one. And for those pesky 'Red' situations, where there's more of them than you can shake a stick at. Usual crowd of suspects terminated with extreme prejudice. Keep this or not, as you will. I may find other options as things progress.

7. Combat scenarios now are fine and well as far as they go. Seemingly fair and balanced for all. Please try to keep this approach for considered changes. Again, suggesting the Weapons Lab, or some such for those special item needs.

8. If possible/practical, keep planet sizes and effects realistic and workable for game play. Excellent work so for. Don't polish that diamond too hard!

9. Sounds a lot like colonization and such. I like this possibility. May open up more opportunity for an explorer/founder role.

10. Keep TW's as part of the mission equipment for the above? First-in Scouts need stout environmental protection and such like.

11. Have followed the thread/discussions on the employment of cap ships. I envision using a Corvette-class ship, with all the bells and whistles. But dang if I can come up with a justification that doesn't appear at best as anything other than a self-serving wish-list.

12. The recent economy tweaks you've done has appeared to work towards balance and fairness for all. Maybe some expansion to accommodate suggestions for #4 and #9. Maybe a 'black market' adjunct, that has seemed to be the rage of late. Your call, Sir.

[Edited on 8-30-2013 by Busch]

[Marvin]

1 - What kinds of changes, additions, or deletions, if any, would you like to see made to the multiplayer system? Keep in mind that the long term Evochron design structure of being able to transition from single player to multiplayer would likely be retained, so differences between the two modes will always generally be kept to a minimum as has been done in the past.

The concept of territories should be re-vamped. Personally, I'm in favor of allowing only a limited number of factions to hold territory. There should be no need to continually do contracts to maintain territory already established. Instead, pilots should be able to concentrate on other parts of the game. In other words, if one faction finds that it wants to conquer the entire Evoverse, it'll need to first dismantle the opposing side's resources and then build up its own.

2 - Should saving game progress only be allowed at dock points such as stations and cities? If not, are there any other changes you would want to see in the saving system.

I like it the way it is. Perhaps the option to select either the current method of saving or go with something more stringent ... like DiD (Dead is Dead). Automatic saves should only be allowed when necessary to keep players from exploiting loopholes in the game mechanics.

3 - Would you prefer a game that focused more on pure combat, exploration, trade, or include a relatively equal mix of these elements without any one particular element being a primary focus of the game?

An equal mix ... but with an increased download so as to accommodate an expansion of each element. For example: the possibility of being penalized for taking on an anti-social profile. Which would include more than the standard "I'm taking Rebel and Guild contracts" situation. There should be penalties for such things as entering or exiting the wrong docking bay. Or approaching a station or city at excessive speeds. Or hauling contraband items.

4 - Would you like to see an extensive crafting system as a design priority? That is, many gameplay items (and maybe even a few secret ones) could be built using a pattern of materials/elements/commodities? If so, would it be worth the extended development time/delay to implement it?

It depends on what's on the menu. Items used for exploration shouldn't normally impact PvP and, therefore, would be less likely to cause consternation among players. On the other hand, the ability to build super weapons is bound to create the kind of conflict which requires Moderator intercession at the forum.

5 - Should 'jump drives' continue with the current space folding point-to-point approach, or should they revert to simply high speed drives (as found in Arvoch Alliance)?

I like the idea of limiting jump drive technology to that found in Arvoch Alliance. For a faster mode of travel, jump gates would still be available. And, although it would probably add a really, really big subroutine to the game, it would be nice if players could construct their own jump gates.

6 - Should Fulcrum Torpedoes remain in a SW3DG space-sim or should they be removed entirely?

Keep them in. Either that or make it easier for a player's hired fleet to take down capital ships (see question 7). The player should also have the option of taking his hired fleet into war zones. Else, without the aid of FTs, new guys (and some of us vets) are stuck doing rescue contracts.

7 - How would you like to see the combat systems changed (or not changed)? This includes weapon damage, firing rate, and range balances. Along the same lines, should missiles do more damage, less damage, have more range, or shorter range? Again, please be specific. And if there are systems where you don't want to see changes, make sure to list those as well.

The only change I'd like to see is a balance in how enemy AI can take out a capital ship (especially during an escort contract) and how a player's hired fleet can assist in taking out a capital ship belonging to the enemy. As it is, if a player accepts an escort contract and then sits back, doing nothing, the escorted ship isn't likely to survive. But, if a player accepts a "destroy capital ship" contract and then lets his wingmen do all the work ... well, goodbye wingmen.

8 - Would you like to see fairly realistic planet sizes be implemented (they would likely be about 500-1000% larger than they are now minimum, with each planet covering up to and beyond 5 sectors of the current scaling system each)? This would also require increasing the game's universe size significantly to accommodate the larger planets, so even every sector would probably be around 10X times larger in size. Details aren't required in this thread, that can be reserved for the other thread about planet scaling and in question 9 below (which doesn't necessarily relate to larger planet sizes).

I can't see where increasing planet size will add to game immersion unless other astronomical changes are also made. Such as massive stars and proper distances at which stars are visible. Along with realistic gravity, deeper oceans, higher mountain ranges and more diverse flora and fauna on some of those bigger planets. And the ability to land or, if you aren't careful, the ability to crash into those mountains.

9 - What kinds of things would you like to see added for planet-side options? Examples that are under consideration include automated farming equipment (that would work similar to current automated mining equipment), city/outpost construction, terraforming (installing atmosphere processors), transporting colonists to new cities/outposts (or at least protecting/escorting the ships that do), discovery and charting (with credit rewards), and surveying new worlds (with required equipment item(s)).

The ability to build your own city ... and the ability to destroy a player-built city either with a special bomb or after an intensive attack. If attack by AI is included as an option, then some method of defending the city (for example: inexpensive lasers or very expensive force fields requiring an even more expensive power source ... maybe solar arrays could be added to the list of items for sale) should be available.

10 - Should terrain walkers remain a part of a SW3DG space-sim or would you prefer resources be devoted solely to focusing on spacecraft options/technology?

Keep the TWs but increase the likelihood they will be attacked by AI (both by ships and by other TWs). If cities are made so they can be blown up (see question 9), then a concentrated attack by TWs should be included as one of the possible ways of destroying a city.

11 - Should piloting capital ships be added to such a game? If so, describe how you would like to see them be part of the -relevant- Evochron gameplay equation (ie lone wolf style mercenary approach, not 'table top' RTS or fleet micro-management).

No third-person table top view. Maybe some day allow for fleet micro-management but, to be done realistically, the "game board" would need to be part of the flag ship's Operations Room ... and now we're talking about adding the ability to walk around your carrier, going from the bridge to whatever other compartments would be required to conduct warfare.

12 - What changes/additions would you like to see in such a game's economy/market system relative to how EM's is set up now? Please be as specific as you can (items, trade locations, values, etc).

Instead of a single payout for each owned territory, cash flow could be linked to each owned station or city. And, when one or more of a player's planets has an emergency, the player would be liable for the costs associated with the emergency. Real-time events, such as colonial development, would impact supply and demand. And, instead of a generic News briefing for each star system's local economy, a more dynamic newscast would be available at properly equipped docking facilities (or transmitted to one of those player-crafted subspace radios you'd build, as discussed in question 4).


[Edited on 11-3-2013 by Marvin]

[SeeJay]

1 - What kinds of changes, additions, or deletions, if any, would you like to see made to the multiplayer system? Keep in mind that the long term Evochron design structure of being able to transition from single player to multiplayer would likely be retained, so differences between the two modes will always generally be kept to a minimum as has been done in the past.

I would like to see a change in how clans claim/maintain a system. Instead of building lots of stations and doing
lots of contracts to keep control, I suggest that only one station is needed (Near the core) to take control.
Doing contracts to get it up to 100% before full control is obtained. No contracts needed to maintain control.
This station would be heavily defended by player build turrets. (Missile/guns/lasers). Very expensive to take control.
To take over a controlled system, that station must be destroyed first, then your own build to replace it. It should not
be possible to take it out on your own, a team required. Docking with this station is not allowed with weapons hot.
That should go for all stations/citys btw.


2 - Should saving game progress only be allowed at dock points such as stations and cities? If not, are there any other changes you would want to see in the saving system.

I like it the way it is. The most important thing is to prevent players exploiting


3 - Would you prefer a game that focused more on pure combat, exploration, trade, or include a relatively equal mix of these elements without any one particular element being a primary focus of the game?

A mix is best imho. That will attract more players to the game. Add some elements that would inspire different
kind of players to interact together. Like an explorers work would be much easier with a fighter escort.
A miner might want some guns around for protection due to pirates etc.


4 - Would you like to see an extensive crafting system as a design priority? That is, many gameplay items (and maybe even a few secret ones) could be built using a pattern of materials/elements/commodities? If so, would it be worth the extended development time/delay to implement it?

If items crafted would improve your ship, yes. Equipment for exploring etc. Maybe a crafting system similar
to the weapon slab, but focus on other improvements than combat.


5 - Should 'jump drives' continue with the current space folding point-to-point approach, or should they revert to simply high speed drives (as found in Arvoch Alliance)?

Maybe a change here so that pilots travelling at high speeds could be intercepted with a “jump drive disruptor�.
Would open up for more piracy, especially if new expensive items could be stolen from ships.


6 - Should Fulcrum Torpedoes remain in a SW3DG space-sim or should they be removed entirely?

Since they are easily enough to avoid, keep them for trading purposes. New pilots would probably appreciate
them in combat to start with.


7 - How would you like to see the combat systems changed (or not changed)? This includes weapon damage, firing rate, and range balances. Along the same lines, should missiles do more damage, less damage, have more range, or shorter range? Again, please be specific. And if there are systems where you don't want to see changes, make sure to list those as well.

Combat regarding PvP is pretty balanced I think. It's not about having the best weapons, it's about skill, since I think
the weapons are pretty balanced. A hired fleet should be able to assist you wherever you are. Not limited to some
systems. I would really want a change in the docking/landing setup. As it is now, you can “crash� into any docking bay,
with a few exceptions, and survive. More realistic docking that require skill and clearance. Maybe a different docking
at cities, more like a landing runway and/or a “helicopter pad�. Differences in ships would determine if you need a
runway or not.


8 - Would you like to see fairly realistic planet sizes be implemented (they would likely be about 500-1000% larger than they are now minimum, with each planet covering up to and beyond 5 sectors of the current scaling system each)? This would also require increasing the game's universe size significantly to accommodate the larger planets, so even every sector would probably be around 10X times larger in size. Details aren't required in this thread, that can be reserved for the other thread about planet scaling and in question 9 below (which doesn't necessarily relate to larger planet sizes).

If planet size increases, all other objects should to. Stars, giants etc. No increase in size if it affects game performance.
It would be nice with really big planets if there is anything to do on them. Build stuff, more reasons to have a TW.
Caves to explore etc.


9 - What kinds of things would you like to see added for planet-side options? Examples that are under consideration include automated farming equipment (that would work similar to current automated mining equipment), city/outpost construction, terraforming (installing atmosphere processors), transporting colonists to new cities/outposts (or at least protecting/escorting the ships that do), discovery and charting (with credit rewards), and surveying new worlds (with required equipment item(s)).

Build your own settlements. Mining stations for different materials. All will contribute to your and/or your clans
economy. Transporting contracts (high risk) would be really nice. Also intercepting approaching asteroids contracts
to prevent the death of all citizens. Maybe be able to build a warning system that alerts you and your clans when
an asteroid will hit the planet so you could plan ahead and intercept it.


10 - Should terrain walkers remain a part of a SW3DG space-sim or would you prefer resources be devoted solely to focusing on spacecraft options/technology?

Yes, keep them but give them more things to do, like building stuff on planets that can't be done by ships.
Exploring places not reachable by ships.


11 - Should piloting capital ships be added to such a game? If so, describe how you would like to see them be part of the -relevant- Evochron gameplay equation (ie lone wolf style mercenary approach, not 'table top' RTS or fleet micro-management).

Yes. Not from the pilot seat like the fighters. More like from a commanding bridge where you can plot a course
using waypoints and stops along that route if you want. Kind of programming an autopilot. Lots of turrets on this
ships that can be manned by you and other players that has docked with your capital ship. Trading and crafting available
here as well as developing ships and equipment. All very time consuming and expensive, but worth it in the end.
It can be destroyed by a big force and you will loose any equipment/ships stored here. Maybe a tech tree with your
progress of what you've achieved so far.


12 - What changes/additions would you like to see in such a game's economy/market system relative to how EM's is set up now? Please be as specific as you can (items, trade locations, values, etc).

More items/raw materials and more things to develop by combining different items. Be able to announce or add your items/raw materials for sale at the station or city you are docked with. (Make them available to other players on the
station/city board where you buy stuff. Be able to transmit commercials for what you sell. (For a fee).


[Edited on 2013-8-30 by SeeJay]

[DennyMala]

1 - What kinds of changes, additions, or deletions, if any, would you like to see made to the multiplayer system? Keep in mind that the long term Evochron design structure of being able to transition from single player to multiplayer would likely be retained, so differences between the two modes will always generally be kept to a minimum as has been done in the past.

More multiplay interaction basing on faction (both players clans and canon universe faction) would be very beneficial in keeping the player interested. As of now, unless a clan or a player comes up with a fun event, we're basically mantaining the territories and doing contracts but there is little more the game is adding to this (apart the great opportunity of allowing it. )


2 - Should saving game progress only be allowed at dock points such as stations and cities? If not, are there any other changes you would want to see in the saving system.

Keep it. It's good to be allowed to save often as to experiment more in the game without fear.


3 - Would you prefer a game that focused more on pure combat, exploration, trade, or include a relatively equal mix of these elements without any one particular element being a primary focus of the game?

[coloro=Yellow]I'd go with the equal mix; we're already going much on the combat so the rest is what should probably be worked more to make it more interesting for players.[/color]


4 - Would you like to see an extensive crafting system as a design priority? That is, many gameplay items (and maybe even a few secret ones) could be built using a pattern of materials/elements/commodities? If so, would it be worth the extended development time/delay to implement it?

That would be neat and would allow for more play options and players interest. Each game I played in multiplay I always found people being crafting nuts and the overall interest in crafting and creating things has always been high. The more flexible and useful the crafting system is the better.


5 - Should 'jump drives' continue with the current space folding point-to-point approach, or should they revert to simply high speed drives (as found in Arvoch Alliance)?

A fast way to move around is basically a need so if this system would be changed it will need to take this into account. The idea of players built gates (maybe restricted to a certain total number to avoid overpopulation) is great if feasible, otherwise I'd not fix what's not broken.


6 - Should Fulcrum Torpedoes remain in a SW3DG space-sim or should they be removed entirely?

Never understood all the fuss about FTs.... keep them and maybe make them more usable. Direct fire, anti cap ship focused weapon and not just a nuke bomb to be dropped for pure carnage.


7 - How would you like to see the combat systems changed (or not changed)? This includes weapon damage, firing rate, and range balances. Along the same lines, should missiles do more damage, less damage, have more range, or shorter range? Again, please be specific. And if there are systems where you don't want to see changes, make sure to list those as well.

I always felt like the weapon range was too short to make combat feel right for me. With the speed the ship fly in space and the maneuvrability they have, keeping so close to fire always seemed a bit unnatural to me. I would prefer longer range weapons with possibly a little higher rate of fire and thus with less impact force to balance it. Projectile weapons would have to travel faster too to make this feel realistic as often you can go faster than the shot itself.... somewhat weird to me.
Missiles are somewhat not very useful as they're not so fast (apart the excals) and easy to shot down. They're supposed to be dangerous weapons and being able to just leave them behind in just some second of afterburner just renders them of little use. Faster and longer burn time while keeping the lock range to 4000 would be the priorities to me.

---- Copied from other thread ----

If i might just throw in my two cents, range differences should be greater to better differentiate weapons and roles.

Actually the difference in the range of weapons while you're in a headon attack against a target (that happens most of times at first) generate only a very brief difference between the moment you can open fire and the enemy can.

I'd really like to have longer range overall and thus allow more delay between the firing of the two weapons type in such a situation.

The easiest way would be to just multiply by 2 all ranges and be good with that.

It will be beneficial in cap ship attacks too (as the size of the target and collision shape leaves only a small frame to fire lasers at the locked target) and for terrain walkers to engage flying targets without the need to be on a mountain or elevated structure to fire effectively.


8 - Would you like to see fairly realistic planet sizes be implemented (they would likely be about 500-1000% larger than they are now minimum, with each planet covering up to and beyond 5 sectors of the current scaling system each)? This would also require increasing the game's universe size significantly to accommodate the larger planets, so even every sector would probably be around 10X times larger in size. Details aren't required in this thread, that can be reserved for the other thread about planet scaling and in question 9 below (which doesn't necessarily relate to larger planet sizes).

I wouldn't go for it... too big it's not good. I'd make them a little bigger maybe, just to justify exiting atmosphere to travel faster but not more than a +50% increase.... their size can be kept as it is now too.


9 - What kinds of things would you like to see added for planet-side options? Examples that are under consideration include automated farming equipment (that would work similar to current automated mining equipment), city/outpost construction, terraforming (installing atmosphere processors), transporting colonists to new cities/outposts (or at least protecting/escorting the ships that do), discovery and charting (with credit rewards), and surveying new worlds (with required equipment item(s)).

Planets are somewhat lifeless when you get to them and stick around a bit. They need to be more populated and active than deep space. There should be a lot of things to do and some traffic in the air and TWs going around doing stuffs. All the points in the question will be great to add interest in planets. Even a way to fast travel from a city to another would be a good addition to keep players on the surface and using TWs.


10 - Should terrain walkers remain a part of a SW3DG space-sim or would you prefer resources be devoted solely to focusing on spacecraft options/technology?

TWs are great fun but unfortunately not much used. Only some contracts can be done with them and thay need a lot more attention to create a really fun playing opportunity. Enemy and friendly AI TWs should be present on the planets surfaces to create encounters both casual or in contracts and some fighting. TWs can be even expanded making them a little more flexible in equipment or kinds as we have to ships so that each player can configure its own a bit to his suits.


11 - Should piloting capital ships be added to such a game? If so, describe how you would like to see them be part of the -relevant- Evochron gameplay equation (ie lone wolf style mercenary approach, not 'table top' RTS or fleet micro-management).

It is a well demanded addition and for sure a source of fun for players. I'd go for both direct control and "captain command" mode with the ability to control various systems and a small fleet of vessels (if the cap ship design have them). Moving around in the cap ship would be a bonus and being able to dock your ship into it and retrieve it to fly around would be a must; think of it as a sort of moving station for the player itself. I dunno what are the possibilities for such a gameplay option but I think it would be a great opportunity.


12 - What changes/additions would you like to see in such a game's economy/market system relative to how EM's is set up now? Please be as specific as you can (items, trade locations, values, etc).

Generally more interaction between the players action and the market and environment reactions. Not much wrong in here I think.

[Destro]

1 - What kinds of changes, additions, or deletions, if any, would you like to see made to the multiplayer system? Keep in mind that the long term Evochron design structure of being able to transition from single player to multiplayer would likely be retained, so differences between the two modes will always generally be kept to a minimum as has been done in the past.

I'd like to see some kind of insurance system in place where a player destroyed in deep space could get some portion of the market value of their ship back if they're far from a save point. This would increase the risk of venturing far from civilized areas. I'm not so hardcore as to advocate permadeath, but dying should carry at least some penalty other than just reverting to your previous save. Also, I personally am not a fan of the idea of instantly transporting in a fully populated station wherever and whenever one pleases, regardless of available support. It cheapens the idea of deep space, in my opinion. Station construction (and city construction) should be expensive, time-consuming, and resource-intensive, requiring a steady stream of support before an installation becomes self-sufficient.

2 - Should saving game progress only be allowed at dock points such as stations and cities? If not, are there any other changes you would want to see in the saving system.

Yes.

3 - Would you prefer a game that focused more on pure combat, exploration, trade, or include a relatively equal mix of these elements without any one particular element being a primary focus of the game?

I think the balance of all is very important, and is done quite well already, though I welcome any additions to any or all of them, provided they don't dwarf any aspect.

4 - Would you like to see an extensive crafting system as a design priority? That is, many gameplay items (and maybe even a few secret ones) could be built using a pattern of materials/elements/commodities? If so, would it be worth the extended development time/delay to implement it?

This is just my view, but crafting shouldn't be a huge part of the game. Modding and customization is great, but it shouldn't be given so much attention that it takes away from the more important aspects of the game.

5 - Should 'jump drives' continue with the current space folding point-to-point approach, or should they revert to simply high speed drives (as found in Arvoch Alliance)?

High-speed drives would be really cool, but I have nothing really against the point-to-point jumps. If anything should be changed, maybe have the range of point-to-point jumps scale as a factor of the engine size and the ship's mass (i.e., a light ship with a big engine would have a huge jump range, whereas a heavy ship with the same engine would have a significantly shorter jump span). Something like that could be implemented in a high-speed drive as well.

6 - Should Fulcrum Torpedoes remain in a SW3DG space-sim or should they be removed entirely?

I haven't messed with them enough to have a really good opinion on the matter, but with them being essentially the equivalent of nukes, it seems like they should be much rarer or at least more difficult to obtain than they currently are.

7 - How would you like to see the combat systems changed (or not changed)? This includes weapon damage, firing rate, and range balances. Along the same lines, should missiles do more damage, less damage, have more range, or shorter range? Again, please be specific. And if there are systems where you don't want to see changes, make sure to list those as well.

Currently, missiles are little more than spam weapons to me, to the point of being almost ineffective unless fired en masse from multiple directions. They're too easy to outrun or shoot down, and the AI is horrendously bad about picking their shots and/or evading them. This is especially true for the lower-end missiles like the Lynx, which are little more than a nuisance against all but the weakest ship frames. They only seem to be effective when fired well within the range of guns.

My vote would be to make missiles faster and more damaging, to increase their threat.

8 - Would you like to see fairly realistic planet sizes be implemented (they would likely be about 500-1000% larger than they are now minimum, with each planet covering up to and beyond 5 sectors of the current scaling system each)? This would also require increasing the game's universe size significantly to accommodate the larger planets, so even every sector would probably be around 10X times larger in size. Details aren't required in this thread, that can be reserved for the other thread about planet scaling and in question 9 below (which doesn't necessarily relate to larger planet sizes).

(Copied from my post on the Planet Sizes and Scaling thread)

While I agree that planet sizes feel on the small side to me, the sizes itself are something I personally can overlook because of the rest of this beautiful game's appeal. Many people don't realize just how BIIIIIG the universe actually is on the human scale (distances are measured in numbers too great for our little minds to appropriately comprehend). While games like Elite Frontier (and the free remake Pioneer) do very well in capturing just how mind-bogglingly MASSIVE the universe in insanely large distances and sizes, a multiplayer game like EM would be too resource-intensive and too boring to hold onto more than a tiny player base due to the incredibly long travel times. Elite 2 is strictly single-player, and as such you can compress time to cover large distances, but if you did them in real time, it would (no joke) take upwards of days, weeks, or even months just to traverse a single solar system. And travel between the stars, forget it. Even factoring in superluminal travel. The game engine just isn't equipped to handle those kinds of numbers.

That said, while I can swallow the low cloud ceiling and distractingly large horizon curvature just fine, looking up and seeing a station in orbit looking like it's just stuck in the sky lower than a jet liner would be flying does bother me quite a bit. I have no idea how this could be addressed, but some kind of solution would be appreciated, even if it's just "cheating" the game engine by hiding them (or scaling them down visually) while in the atmosphere.

Rather than worry about realistic scaling by making planets huge and stars and gas giants monstrously gigantic, I suggest working more towards giving more life and detail to the existing celestial bodies. Many of the planets feel very similar with just different color schemes, and almost all planets yield pretty much the same resources. Greater variety in minable resources, as well as more specialized locations would be great. That is, make the more developed planets in safer locations be relatively poor in minable resources as most of their deposits would likely have been mined out or exploited already, while having more remote, virgin planets be more plentiful in what they have to offer. Different types of planets could offer more of particular resources either in their crusts or atmosphere as well. For instance, carbon planets could exist that are extremely rich in things like diamonds, carbon, and sulfur, as well as sulfurous gasses in the atmosphere.

I'd like to see more variety in planet terrains as well, having things like volcanically active terrains that are jagged and barely navigable in the walker, or planets with barren, windswept deserts, or planets covered entirely in oceans and/or ice (not necessarily water). Don't limit yourself to Earthlike conditions either - varying sky colors or terrain compositions are even better. The moon of New Hope looks a lot like our Moon as well - pockmarked by craters and lacking an atmosphere - but there doesn't seem to be very many of these in the Evoverse, at least as far as I've found. I know we can't realisitically go crazy with a "real" number of celestial bodies flying all over the place as in a real solar system, but more natural satellites or planetoids with no atmosphere or whose atmosphere has been blown away by solar wind over millions of years would be a nice touch too. That said, there should be a LOT of planets out there that are worthless as well, whether due to extremely hostile conditions making planetfall dangerous or impossible or due to a lack of any usable resources, to make finding a rich world that much more exciting.

Planets within heavily populated systems should also show more signs of being inhabited. Even the core planets feel barren and largely untouched, especially while in atmo. Having different classes/sizes of cities as well as a greater number of them would be a great start. I LOVE the idea of player colonies, though to make sure this doesn't get spammed, doing so should be almost prohibitively expensive and require a constant stream of funding and resources for a good while before they could become self sustaining. I'd even go so far as to say make it necessary for an entire guild to fund them. This would make exploring the universe for new uncharted planets even more rewarding, as an ambitious guild could stake a claim on a virgin world and develop it. Independent mercenaries could set up automated mining stations or gas extractors to temporarily exploit.

In summation, I think everyone would find it much easier to overlook the "unrealistic" scaling of the Evoverse if we spent the effort fleshing out more unique details in what already exists, rather than trying to make it feel bigger. You'd be surprised how much more massive it would feel if there was simply more variety.

I'm all for making the TWs MUCH smaller as well.

9 - What kinds of things would you like to see added for planet-side options? Examples that are under consideration include automated farming equipment (that would work similar to current automated mining equipment), city/outpost construction, terraforming (installing atmosphere processors), transporting colonists to new cities/outposts (or at least protecting/escorting the ships that do), discovery and charting (with credit rewards), and surveying new worlds (with required equipment item(s)).

More missions that involve the terrain walker other than just "go to point A, stand still for a minute." Maybe some military missions that involve escorting a ground convoy where ground and air support is required. Ability to buy claims on planets (at exponentially increasing cost depending on location and local development), establish outpost colonies at great cost in time and a steady flow of resources where the colony will die if it gets cut off.

10 - Should terrain walkers remain a part of a SW3DG space-sim or would you prefer resources be devoted solely to focusing on spacecraft options/technology?

The terrain walkers add another nice level of depth to the game with a lot of potential, but only if planetside options are expanded upon. I also would like to see TWs scaled down in size, personally.

11 - Should piloting capital ships be added to such a game? If so, describe how you would like to see them be part of the -relevant- Evochron gameplay equation (ie lone wolf style mercenary approach, not 'table top' RTS or fleet micro-management).

No. Capital ships are behemoths that require a lot of crew and resources, not to mention it doesn't seem to me that one person would be "driving" a battleship in the same sense as one drives a speedboat. Also, capital ships in my view should be so expensive to purchase, operate and maintain that only militaries and big private organizations could afford to do so. Independent mercenaries doing so sounds just ludicrous to me, although if the option for guilds to finance and jointly operate one was implemented, that would make more sense to me.

12 - What changes/additions would you like to see in such a game's economy/market system relative to how EM's is set up now? Please be as specific as you can (items, trade locations, values, etc).

If I had my way, I'd love to see a complex, dynamic economy on the scale of the X Universe, where the flow of goods is tracked in real time and affects prices and availability of goods. However, the X games are horrendously bad as space simulators, and combat in those games is a joke. They're essentially "space" (quotes intentional) economy simulators, and while they excel at economic modelling, they don't come anywhere close to the feel of Evochron as a space exploration/combat simulator. Short version: if a more complex economy is possible and practical, that's awesome, but if it would detract too many resources from the rest of the game, don't mess with it.

Specifically I'd like to see raw materials distributed much more unevenly throughout the Evoverse, making hotbeds of conflict over valuable resources more likely, as well as adding more variety in the availability of goods than just "low tech, high tech."

[Cindy]

1 - What kinds of changes, additions, or deletions, if any, would you like to see made to the multiplayer system? Keep in mind that the long term Evochron design structure of being able to transition from single player to multiplayer would likely be retained, so differences between the two modes will always generally be kept to a minimum as has been done in the past.

I don't think that any changes, additions, or deletions should be made to the Multi-player system other than the need for a better way of system control. In this I agree with SeeJay: "I would like to see a change in how clans claim/maintain a system. Instead of building lots of stations and doing lots of contracts to keep control, I suggest that only one station is needed (Near the core) to take control. Doing contracts to get it up to 100% before full control is obtained. No contracts needed to maintain control. This station would be heavily defended by player build turrets. (Missile/guns/lasers). Very expensive to take control. To take over a controlled system, that station must be destroyed first, then your own build to replace it. It should not be possible to take it out on your own, a team required. Docking with this station is not allowed with weapons hot. That should go for all stations/citys btw." The only point I'd like to change is that you should have to do something from your clan's core station to keep the percentage up. It is realistic for a station to have needs. To make it fair for other players, maybe clan tagged stations shouldn't let other clan players approach without being fired upon unless the clan in question hasn't done anything for the station in 5-7 days and then it doesn't protect itself. It's realistic because who is going to fire at a ship that may be bringing food and other supplies? After 5-7 days, well, I'd be mighty hungry, wouldn't you?


2 - Should saving game progress only be allowed at dock points such as stations and cities? If not, are there any other changes you would want to see in the saving system.

I would say yes, but what about those who explore deep space? If they can't save, then if they find a planet by crashing into it... well... they go back to step one. Because of this, I don't think saving game progress should only be allowed at dock points such as stations and cities.


3 - Would you prefer a game that focused more on pure combat, exploration, trade, or include a relatively equal mix of these elements without any one particular element being a primary focus of the game?

I like the relatively equal mix of the elements listed above.


4 - Would you like to see an extensive crafting system as a design priority? That is, many gameplay items (and maybe even a few secret ones) could be built using a pattern of materials/elements/commodities? If so, would it be worth the extended development time/delay to implement it?

5 - Should 'jump drives' continue with the current space folding point-to-point approach, or should they revert to simply high speed drives (as found in Arvoch Alliance)?

Either way sounds good to me, but I do personally like the high speed drives better. It might open up ideas for ways to shoot your opponent in hyper-space.


6 - Should Fulcrum Torpedoes remain in a SW3DG space-sim or should they be removed entirely?

If they are going to be left, I think that the timer should be removed and that availability should be less.


7 - How would you like to see the combat systems changed (or not changed)? This includes weapon damage, firing rate, and range balances. Along the same lines, should missiles do more damage, less damage, have more range, or shorter range? Again, please be specific. And if there are systems where you don't want to see changes, make sure to list those as well.

I think that you shouldn't be able to fly faster than your canon particles are traveling. I also like the idea of a lot more range with a greater firing rate, but less damage. Maybe extend the ranges of choices in the weapon lab.


8 - Would you like to see fairly realistic planet sizes be implemented (they would likely be about 500-1000% larger than they are now minimum, with each planet covering up to and beyond 5 sectors of the current scaling system each)? This would also require increasing the game's universe size significantly to accommodate the larger planets, so even every sector would probably be around 10X times larger in size. Details aren't required in this thread, that can be reserved for the other thread about planet scaling and in question 9 below (which doesn't necessarily relate to larger planet sizes).

I mainly want a realistic scale all around. If the ships are bigger, then the planets should be larger as well.


9 - What kinds of things would you like to see added for planet-side options? Examples that are under consideration include automated farming equipment (that would work similar to current automated mining equipment), city/outpost construction, terraforming (installing atmosphere processors), transporting colonists to new cities/outposts (or at least protecting/escorting the ships that do), discovery and charting (with credit rewards), and surveying new worlds (with required equipment item(s)).

I like all of these options as it would open up something new and because it is realistic to open up new frontiers.


10 - Should terrain walkers remain a part of a SW3DG space-sim or would you prefer resources be devoted solely to focusing on spacecraft options/technology?

I like the terrain walkers and think that they should remain a part of the game.


11 - Should piloting capital ships be added to such a game? If so, describe how you would like to see them be part of the -relevant- Evochron gameplay equation (ie lone wolf style mercenary approach, not 'table top' RTS or fleet micro-management).

Piloting capital ships don't really matter to me. I'd probably try it once, but then leave it for my Avenger or specially built civi-frame.


12 - What changes/additions would you like to see in such a game's economy/market system relative to how EM's is set up now? Please be as specific as you can (items, trade locations, values, etc).

I'd like less availability for high end items like Mantis Drives, Fulcrum Torpedos, Stealth Fields, etc. near well-known systems.

[Rexor]

Hi, everybody !


2- Saving game only in stations and cities is sufficient, IMO.

3- I like combat and exploration ; I almost never traded (only for special extremely favorable occasions, ... hehehe !). But trade must be present.
I would like to have more combat mission types against Vonari .... maybe some plots ...... (... something to do besides exploration when you're rich, with an high military rank, in your cool "Evoch E" ....).
IMO, now it takes too long to reach many hidden planets/places. (Also everybody have time problems in the life).

4- Yes, this can be a good idea, .... adds something to do.
Perhaps having to look for particular hidden components to create some weapons/components a little more effective (But this could make multiplayer unbalanced ....).

7- I hate indirect fire (missiles), I like direct fire (cannons). So, for me, the missiles are even too powerful, and too dangerous. I really don't like that you have to continuously switch IDS on/off to make countermeasures more effective, I don't like fly with IDS off ....... (this is the reason why I left the game last year). I would like to make effective countermeasures even with IDS on ..... . ... Perhaps improving the aggressiveness of the AI in the movements and with cannons ..................

8- This could be interesting (adding realism is mainly always attractive ..), but it might make the game too complicated ... (a game is a game, and must be entertaining).
So, I'm not sure ..... perhaps only increase them by 2/3 times ............

9- I would like to add atmosphere to the game ; I mean see your character outside of the ship when you arrive to the stations / cities, ... in the style of "Freelancer" game (only if you can choose his appearance). (... Anyway, I don't think this is a "must").
Absolutely not farming equipments, and I don't care about constructions/mining/terraforming, can be protecting/escorting, discovery and charting.

10- I don't like particularly terrain walkers ........ it doesn't seem to me a great addition.

11- No, I think this could be a serious error, 'cause it leads you away from the spirit of the game, a sinlge man-fighter.

[Edited on 31-8-2013 by Rexor]

[_-Caleb-_]

Hola.

1 - What kinds of changes, additions, or deletions, if any, would you like to see made to the multiplayer system? Keep in mind that the long term Evochron design structure of being able to transition from single player to multiplayer would likely be retained, so differences between the two modes will always generally be kept to a minimum as has been done in the past.
[/quote]

I like the current model.

2 - Should saving game progress only be allowed at dock points such as stations and cities? If not, are there any other changes you would want to see in the saving system.

No, some pilots like me wants discover uncharted systems: From 2000 or 3000 sector to the most-near-station what are we doing then?

3 - Would you prefer a game that focused more on pure combat, exploration, trade, or include a relatively equal mix of these elements without any one particular element being a primary focus of the game?

Like now, is very balanced. Only this: The game need a new BIG quest with ALL the game's functions.

But i think in this: Ok the enemy is the Vonari, then implement a distress call like this: The Vonari is attacking XXXXX System, aprox 25 ships. And the player decide.

More dynamic: No only Sierra-Cerulean-Talison-Arvoch... The Vonari can Attack the center regions...

4 - Would you like to see an extensive crafting system as a design priority? That is, many gameplay items (and maybe even a few secret ones) could be built using a pattern of materials/elements/commodities? If so, would it be worth the extended development time/delay to implement it?

This is a good idea. I think in add some Special Items, Relics, etc, and we can pick some clues in a contracts. Then we can sell the relics/sp. items in some places but watch out, we have a valuable cargo, our ship is the target of all mercenaries ships from vonarion to sol...

5 - Should 'jump drives' continue with the current space folding point-to-point approach, or should they revert to simply high speed drives (as found in Arvoch Alliance)?

I like the AA Fulcrum Unit, maybe u can add this unit and other for the begginers, and then Fulc C.1, etc. If use the fulcrum unit we can see all around us, then maybe can see a battle, a object, a planet, etc.

EDIT: Maybe add one fulcrum unit countdown for start (For prevent micro-pvp-jumps)

6 - Should Fulcrum Torpedoes remain in a SW3DG space-sim or should they be removed entirely?

Maybe is util for the new pilots vs cap ships.

7 - How would you like to see the combat systems changed (or not changed)? This includes weapon damage, firing rate, and range balances. Along the same lines, should missiles do more damage, less damage, have more range, or shorter range? Again, please be specific. And if there are systems where you don't want to see changes, make sure to list those as well.

Escape Pods for IA, escape pod for pilot, if u rescue a escape pod from ia pilot the faction pay a reward, if a ia pilot rescue u, u need pay a reward. I think is a good idea

8 - Would you like to see fairly realistic planet sizes be implemented (they would likely be about 500-1000% larger than they are now minimum, with each planet covering up to and beyond 5 sectors of the current scaling system each)? This would also require increasing the game's universe size significantly to accommodate the larger planets, so even every sector would probably be around 10X times larger in size. Details aren't required in this thread, that can be reserved for the other thread about planet scaling and in question 9 below (which doesn't necessarily relate to larger planet sizes).

Ok: I want a bigger planets, right, but i want do it something into a planets. Build Cities, Colonize for a faction, etc. And the planets need Caves or a sea for put submerged cities, objects, etc.

9 - What kinds of things would you like to see added for planet-side options? Examples that are under consideration include automated farming equipment (that would work similar to current automated mining equipment), city/outpost construction, terraforming (installing atmosphere processors), transporting colonists to new cities/outposts (or at least protecting/escorting the ships that do), discovery and charting (with credit rewards), and surveying new worlds (with required equipment item(s)).

I like all ur ideas, only can add a new planetary vehicle, like a Jeep/tank or something... then we have the option of different missions.

Protect a Citie. U can buy some LAND-AIR "cannons" for example then u rent this cannons to a citie, then the citie sell u every cycle... some like this.

10 - Should terrain walkers remain a part of a SW3DG space-sim or would you prefer resources be devoted solely to focusing on spacecraft options/technology?

I like the TW but the TW need more contracts, more enemies and more options (like water-fuel), autopilot, etc.

11 - Should piloting capital ships be added to such a game? If so, describe how you would like to see them be part of the -relevant- Evochron gameplay equation (ie lone wolf style mercenary approach, not 'table top' RTS or fleet micro-management).

I don't like this idea, drive a cap ship, nononono, imagine in multiplayer, a talon vs a battleship

I think in this: A new item, fleet ships support or something like this, one item in the secondary weapon racks for send a "Mayday" to the fleet in this system: 20 or 30 secs later one cap ship and 4 or 5 fighters jump in zone to help the player.

12 - What changes/additions would you like to see in such a game's economy/market system relative to how EM's is set up now? Please be as specific as you can (items, trade locations, values, etc).

All the black market thread

A dynamic MAP: Automatic Add a uncharted systems, then we can buy this galactic maps in the stations/cities/trade, etc.

Regards.

[Edited on 6-1-2014 by AdamSelene]

[Munshine]

Hi everyone. Here is my feedback.

1 - What kinds of changes, additions, or deletions, if any, would you like to see made to the multiplayer system? Keep in mind that the long term Evochron design structure of

being able to transition from single player to multiplayer would likely be retained, so differences between the two modes will always generally be kept to a minimum as has been

done in the past.

The only changes that I wish to see made to the Multiplayer is the way the Clan's system control is designed. Building and maintening at least 50 stations to control a whole system is a tedious task.
Clan members are doing delivery contracts again and again which is the easiest way to get influence (The Delivery pizza syndrome). It can take a lot of time, which some Clan members don't have much and prefer doing some more interesting things.

Instead of the way it's currently designed, I would think that only a few stations should be builded and maintened. If there's a planet in a system, building a Clan base on a planet and some stations around in space would be interesting as it would involve Clan players in space and on ground.
Finally Clan members shouldn't have to do missions in order to keep maintenance, they would just need to dock at a station or land on the Clan Base and wait for a limited time ( one minute or so) for maintenance.


2 - Should saving game progress only be allowed at dock points such as stations and cities? If not, are there any other changes you would want to see in the saving system.

I think that the current saving game progress in Evochron must be kept (including fast saves between contracts).


3 - Would you prefer a game that focused more on pure combat, exploration, trade, or include a relatively equal mix of these elements without any one particular element being a

primary focus of the game?

I like open- ended free trading, exploring and space combat sims. The more variety, the better. So I would prefer a balanced mix of these elements.


4 - Would you like to see an extensive crafting system as a design priority? That is, many gameplay items (and maybe even a few secret ones) could be built using a pattern of

materials/elements/commodities? If so, would it be worth the extended development time/delay to implement it?

No. An extensive crafting system isn't needed in a game that focuses on the player'skills not on the items skills.


5 - Should 'jump drives' continue with the current space folding point-to-point approach, or should they revert to simply high speed drives (as found in Arvoch Alliance)?
I like the way 'jump drives'are working in Evochron.


6 - Should Fulcrum Torpedoes remain in a SW3DG space-sim or should they be removed entirely?
Fulcrum Torpedoes should be removed entirely as they are overpowered and source of griefing in the past.




7 - How would you like to see the combat systems changed (or not changed)? This includes weapon damage, firing rate, and range balances. Along the same lines, should missiles do

more damage, less damage, have more range, or shorter range? Again, please be specific. And if there are systems where you don't want to see changes, make sure to list those as

well.

I would like a kind of torpedo against the capital ships with requires time to target (targeting sequence). No other changes in mind.


8 - Would you like to see fairly realistic planet sizes be implemented (they would likely be about 500-1000% larger than they are now minimum, with each planet covering up to

and beyond 5 sectors of the current scaling system each)? This would also require increasing the game's universe size significantly to accommodate the larger planets, so even

every sector would probably be around 10X times larger in size. Details aren't required in this thread, that can be reserved for the other thread about planet scaling and in

question 9 below (which doesn't necessarily relate to larger planet sizes).

Yes.


9 - What kinds of things would you like to see added for planet-side options? Examples that are under consideration include automated farming equipment (that would work similar

to current automated mining equipment), city/outpost construction, terraforming (installing atmosphere processors), transporting colonists to new cities/outposts (or at least

protecting/escorting the ships that do), discovery and charting (with credit rewards), and surveying new worlds (with required equipment item(s)).

Facilities to build on a planet (with the build constructor):planet Clan outpost, atmosphere processors, energy facility, factories, communication facility, defense systems (Clan outposts only)

More equipments to deploy on a planet (with the deploy constructor):farming equipment, surveying probes, satellites, reconnaissance drones

10 - Should terrain walkers remain a part of a SW3DG space-sim or would you prefer resources be devoted solely to focusing on spacecraft options/technology?
Difficult question as the TW is truly a refreshing feature. The issue is, from experience in my Clan, players are selling them instead of actually using them. Unless the TW gameplay is greatly enhanced, resources may be used to extend spacecraft options/technology instead.


11 - Should piloting capital ships be added to such a game? If so, describe how you would like to see them be part of the -relevant- Evochron gameplay equation (ie lone wolf

style mercenary approach, not 'table top' RTS or fleet micro-management).
I don't think that piloting capital ships is relevant for such a dogfighting game.


12 - What changes/additions would you like to see in such a game's economy/market system relative to how EM's is set up now? Please be as specific as you can (items, trade

locations, values, etc).
More variety in the items to be sold. Illegal items (drugs, dangerous technology, dangerous animals) that are forbidden in some factions systems but legit in others (rebel systems) could be a nice addition as it would be risky but highly rewarding to trade them.

[Edited on 8-31-2013 by Munshine]

[dalkorn]

1 - What kinds of changes, additions, or deletions, if any, would you like to see made to the multiplayer system? Keep in mind that the long term Evochron design structure of being able to transition from single player to multiplayer would likely be retained, so differences between the two modes will always generally be kept to a minimum as has been done in the past.

* I love the way multiplayer is handled in EM, so I don't think any changes are needed here.

2 - Should saving game progress only be allowed at dock points such as stations and cities? If not, are there any other changes you would want to see in the saving system.

* I actually like this idea, makes space even more daunting when travelling through.

3 - Would you prefer a game that focused more on pure combat, exploration, trade, or include a relatively equal mix of these elements without any one particular element being a primary focus of the game?

* An equal spread I think, I like to be able to do what ever I am in the mood for. If any changes were to be made, I'ld suggest more variation on the exploration side of things. For example, finding ancient abandoned cities on a distant planet with the possibility of finding/using rare alien tech. Give more of a reason for us explorers to go out into the dark expanse.

4 - Would you like to see an extensive crafting system as a design priority? That is, many gameplay items (and maybe even a few secret ones) could be built using a pattern of materials/elements/commodities? If so, would it be worth the extended development time/delay to implement it?

* Although I'm not really a crafter type player, I know alot of people love crafting, so yes, this could be a very good move for many players.

5 - Should 'jump drives' continue with the current space folding point-to-point approach, or should they revert to simply high speed drives (as found in Arvoch Alliance)?

* Maybe have both depending on which type of jump/warp drive you have installed...allows players to personalise their ship even more.

6 - Should Fulcrum Torpedoes remain in a SW3DG space-sim or should they be removed entirely?

* Seeing as I'm still fairly rubbish at combat in EM, I can't really pass a judgement here. Although, the more weapon choices you have to use or to be used against you adds to the variation in combat engagements.

7 - How would you like to see the combat systems changed (or not changed)? This includes weapon damage, firing rate, and range balances. Along the same lines, should missiles do more damage, less damage, have more range, or shorter range? Again, please be specific. And if there are systems where you don't want to see changes, make sure to list those as well.

* Again, can't comment much here as I still suck at combat in EM

8 - Would you like to see fairly realistic planet sizes be implemented (they would likely be about 500-1000% larger than they are now minimum, with each planet covering up to and beyond 5 sectors of the current scaling system each)? This would also require increasing the game's universe size significantly to accommodate the larger planets, so even every sector would probably be around 10X times larger in size. Details aren't required in this thread, that can be reserved for the other thread about planet scaling and in question 9 below (which doesn't necessarily relate to larger planet sizes).

* I love this idea, but only if the new planet sizes are because of more things to do on them and not just for eye candy. More cities, caves, resource rich mining areas etc.

9 - What kinds of things would you like to see added for planet-side options? Examples that are under consideration include automated farming equipment (that would work similar to current automated mining equipment), city/outpost construction, terraforming (installing atmosphere processors), transporting colonists to new cities/outposts (or at least protecting/escorting the ships that do), discovery and charting (with credit rewards), and surveying new worlds (with required equipment item(s)).

* I love all of the above suggestions. Anything extra we can do on planets is a plus for me.

10 - Should terrain walkers remain a part of a SW3DG space-sim or would you prefer resources be devoted solely to focusing on spacecraft options/technology?

* Keep them in...without a doubt. Even though the primary focus should be on the spaceship/planet expansion ideas.

11 - Should piloting capital ships be added to such a game? If so, describe how you would like to see them be part of the -relevant- Evochron gameplay equation (ie lone wolf style mercenary approach, not 'table top' RTS or fleet micro-management).

* I prefer small ships, but alot of my friends who although like the look of evochron wont play it because of lack of cap ships (yes, they are shallow minded). However, I think there should be 2 versions of cap ships. The first being controllable by a single player. A smaller cap ship which is aimed more at the trade side of things. Slow moving, large cargo capacity (maybe even having the ability to store a few small ships in for transport) but with either no weapons at all or basic flak cannons for defence. This would encourage players to work together on escorting said trade ships, and encourage player - player contract negotiating. The second could be the larger cap ships. Not sure if anyone has played it, but Entropia Universe has cap ships and they've done it in a way that a single player cant wipe everything out. A player can own a cap ship, and fly through space in it. But unless they have hired crew (players) their turrets will be unmanned and not operational. This would stop every player going for cap ship, may even end up just clans have cap ships and crewed by clan mates with other clan mates providing fighter escort. Cap ships could be a good addition for many players, but need to be done right so it doesn't end up with every player and his dog having one.

12 - What changes/additions would you like to see in such a game's economy/market system relative to how EM's is set up now? Please be as specific as you can (items, trade locations, values, etc).

* At the moment, I like how EM does this, so from me no changes are needed.

[-splosives-]

1: More possibilities for clan VS clan warfare. More interesting territory control system, more benefits for controlling systems.

2: An interesting idea, but I'm not sure.

3: I would prefer a mix of everything.

4: I think the current crafting system could use some revisions, but it isn't the top priority of what needs to happen.

5: I'm a fan of the Arvoch alliance system.

6: I never liked FT's in the game. I never used one since newyear 2013 and will keep it that way.

7: I think combat in Evochron is one of it's strongest points at the moment. The only thing that I can criticize is the AI's ability to defy

Physics. I do think a better, more balanced crafting system could improve the depth of combat.

8: I'm still not sure about this one. I am sure, however, that the size of stars and gas giants need to be increased. And do something about the plants, they look ridiculous. Either remove them or make them way smaller.

9: Pretty much anything that gives us a reason to walk on a planet. The whole system is good, but it just lacks purpose. I'd like to be able to

build cities or factories.

10: Keep the TW's in it. Even though they're only a gimmick right now, I still think they're a good addition.

11: I'm not sure about the actual capital ships, but it would be cool to see a corvette class.

12: I think the economy has 3 main problems.

First of all, the maximum profit on a trade run is too high at this moment. Right now I can buy things and sell them for 100% profit within only
1 jump. 20% would be more realistic.

Second, once you have billions of credits, there's nothing you can spend it on, unless you want to spam the map with stations, which is pretty pointless.

Third, the prices don't fluctuate based on supply/demand, they just randomly fluctuate. Economies of starsystems also never change.

So the game needs some sort of maximum profit cap within a certain amount of jumps to solve the first problem.
For the second problem, it needs more stuff to buy at late game when players have billions of cash. For example really expensive things that aren't tradeable (like cap ships or cities).
The third problem would require some more thought, and probably a lot of study and/or comparison to how other games handle it, and succeed.



[Edited on 9-4-2013 by -splosives-]

[countjimula]

1. I would like to see the multi player aspects of Arvoch Alliance combined with the multi player part of Evochron Mercenary. I see an interface, something like joining up as a gunner, but only usable in a specific area or station in the Evochron universe then you PVP just like in Avoch Alliance.

2. I have no issues with the way saves are done now, but I would not reject to such restrictions

3.I like a mix of combat, exploration, and trade trade. If there was a focus at all I would like to see it more on combat

4. It would be nice to have more crafting options

5. I like the point-to-point approach for this game

6. If fulcrum torpedoes were in the game or not I would not be upset

7. I like seeing the ship move position according to the direction it is going when you see the ship from the back.

8. I like the planet sizes now

9. It would be cool to have stations that focus on specific things depending on the resources on that planet.

10. I like the terrain walkers and I hope they are at least as good as they are now.

11. I really see adding capital ship control as opening a can of worms that would in the end take focus away from other aspects of the game, but what do I know.

12. More kinds of goods would be good

[DaveK]

Questions:

1 - What kinds of changes, additions, or deletions, if any, would you like to see made to the multiplayer system? Keep in mind that the long term Evochron design structure of being able to transition from single player to multiplayer would likely be retained, so differences between the two modes will always generally be kept to a minimum as has been done in the past.

multiplayer gives the opportunity to:
1: have pvp and group combat as well as groups taking on combat missions in the WZ's
2: clans controlling territory
3: chat and be part of the community as you potter round doing your own thing
4: player - player trading interactions

All of these are integral to the gameplay in MP given its sandbox nature.

The one aspect that doesn't seem to work as perhaps intended is the clan structure. I believe its original intention was to create player/player conflict and in fairly large group fights. There have been lots of threads suggesting changes/solutions - at present clan territory control doesn't work (repetitive contract grinding) and doesn't create clan vs clan conflicts (problems with having enough players on-line together), probably too many and hence small clans.

I suggest a thread dedicated to a proper discussion of how the clan system could/should work and what it should achieve. There is a lot of potential for 'big fights', long term fights taking/maintaining territory and so on and a lot of good ideas scattered through the threads

2 - Should saving game progress only be allowed at dock points such as stations and cities? If not, are there any other changes you would want to see in the saving system.

I like the present system, but I can also see why some players want to make it 'harder' for 'realism'. I guess that if they feel strongly then they could apply restrictions to themselves about when and where they choose to save. My concern about saving being limited to stations/cities is related to the exploration side of Evochron. If I am between systems or in uninhabited systems or pushing the boundaries of known space, then where can I save? If I die in deep space when exploring, will I have to start the journey again from the nearest system? Could we include saving on the surface of a planet, since many planets in uncharted systems don't have cities. Perhaps just being in the vicinity of a planet - the same sector - in orbit?I don't want to have to build or deploy a station just to be able to save.

3 - Would you prefer a game that focused more on pure combat, exploration, trade, or include a relatively equal mix of these elements without any one particular element being a primary focus of the game?

For me (and I think many other players) the sandbox nature of EM is a major plus. I am not a combat oriented person (partially through age related reflex challenges!! ) Vice has already created a combat centred game, in Arvoch Alliance, for those who enjoy combat. I love this game because I can do anything I like whenever I like including winding down on an eye candy sightseeing tour or exploring distant places - the increase in the number of systems above and below the galactic plane is a great enhancement to the Extension, as is having AI leave you alone if you don't get too close.

4 - Would you like to see an extensive crafting system as a design priority? That is, many gameplay items (and maybe even a few secret ones) could be built using a pattern of materials/elements/commodities? If so, would it be worth the extended development time/delay to implement it?

This could be a biggy! We can pimp our ships, create customised weapons already. There are constructor stations for creating 'manufactured' goods from raw materials (also needed in the WL). I'm not sure how managable it would be in allow players to create higher tech customised engines, wings, afterburners etc. Ditto for customising stations. There is potential for expanding the constructor range of manufactured goods from raw materials that would also expand the trade commodity range and would fit within what one might expect in the Evoverse. One example is converting platinum, gold, silver and diamonds into jewellery - there aren't many (any?) luxury items at the moment. It could also slot into the idea of contraband and smuggling - small, but very pricey commodities that don't have the negative connotations of alcohol and narcotics.

5 - Should 'jump drives' continue with the current space folding point-to-point approach, or should they revert to simply high speed drives (as found in Arvoch Alliance)?

Losing the jump aspect would mess up combat micro-jumping, though I'm not sure how big a problem that would be - those good at combat use it to make themselves even better - we combat wimps can't microjump when we need to because we're too beaten up! I've not played AA so I can't comment on how he system 'feels' compared to jumping, but I would just ask . . . why make the change? what benefit does it bring?

6 - Should Fulcrum Torpedoes remain in a SW3DG space-sim or should they be removed entirely?

FT's have three uses:
1: trade items to make your fortune quickly
2: game spoilers by players who use them to finish pvp combat instantly- this seems to have been solved by applying peer pressure in MP
3: a quick way to finish too hard combat missions if you are flying solo (confession - so I could start Marvin's 'Quest for Peace' I used FT's for the atmospheric combat contracts in the game quest!!)

They are useful and legit for 1 & 3. The changes made in the Extension was intended to 'tame' them - has it worked?

7 - How would you like to see the combat systems changed (or not changed)? This includes weapon damage, firing rate, and range balances. Along the same lines, should missiles do more damage, less damage, have more range, or shorter range? Again, please be specific. And if there are systems where you don't want to see changes, make sure to list those as well.

As long as I can just about survive in combat against AI during the course of my normal 'adventures' I don't mind. In combat against other players I don't last long enough to know what would make a difference, except an invulnerable mode!

8 - Would you like to see fairly realistic planet sizes be implemented (they would likely be about 500-1000% larger than they are now minimum, with each planet covering up to and beyond 5 sectors of the current scaling system each)? This would also require increasing the game's universe size significantly to accommodate the larger planets, so even every sector would probably be around 10X times larger in size. Details aren't required in this thread, that can be reserved for the other thread about planet scaling and in question 9 below (which doesn't necessarily relate to larger planet sizes).

As long as there was more variation in planetary features (see Q9)

9 - What kinds of things would you like to see added for planet-side options? Examples that are under consideration include automated farming equipment (that would work similar to current automated mining equipment), city/outpost construction, terraforming (installing atmosphere processors), transporting colonists to new cities/outposts (or at least protecting/escorting the ships that do), discovery and charting (with credit rewards), and surveying new worlds (with required equipment item(s)).

forests - more (and bigger) cities/outposts/settlements - higher mountains (and caves to explore please!!) - deeper oceans (there are only a few places where a TW is fully submerged). To maintain the present amount of 'detail' on a much bigger surface wouldn't achieve very much, even with the extra tasks suggested in Q8. Whether the cost in terms of game size and coding merits such a change in detail given that EM is a 'space sim' depends on how much changing planets will encourage their use 'in game'.

10 - Should terrain walkers remain a part of a SW3DG space-sim or would you prefer resources be devoted solely to focusing on spacecraft options/technology?

I recognise that some players want the TW to be a 'Battle Mech' so they can have proper fights on the surface and I can see why they aren't! Having TW's has made planetary contracts more interesting. Increasing the planetary details (as suggested in Q9) would make the present style of TW much more useful and much more fun, especially if they could be used to 'assemble' technology on the surface. However, TW's need to stay 'tamed'. I wouldn't like to see them become battle mechs

11 - Should piloting capital ships be added to such a game? If so, describe how you would like to see them be part of the -relevant- Evochron gameplay equation (ie lone wolf style mercenary approach, not 'table top' RTS or fleet micro-management).

I don't see how you could 'fly' a capital ship without it becoming RTS or flight management. The bridge crew is relatively enormous and I can't think of any SciFi movies where the battlecruiser is flow like a fighter by a single pilot.

Perhaps a compromise might be possible, taking the present gunner facility as a precedfent. Have something smaller, say corvette sized that requires two or three players to fly it - one piloting/one handling weapons or trade as appropriate/one handling nav - drive operations etc. They would have to be expensive and have limits to prevent a small group creating the infamous 'super ship', but could have a much bigger cargo capacity and be able to handle special cargo that is too big for normal ships (parts for the mining equipment/terraforming etc mentioned in Q8)

12 - What changes/additions would you like to see in such a game's economy/market system relative to how EM's is set up now? Please be as specific as you can (items, trade locations, values, etc).

1: jewellery and other luxuries as mentioned in Q4. The core systems would be developed enough to support such items
2: The smuggling suggestions in the Black Market Economy thread started by DynamicRanger
3: a return to having control over the charges I make to other players for trade items (unless I've forgotten how to do it! )
4: make the differential for mineable raw materials or very basic commodities in different systems big enough so that players who enjoy trading are able to make a decent wage out of transporting cargo other than platinum and gold. For example 'desert' planets that would pay a proper premium for water and food or technological planets that would pays a big premium for electronics or the raw materials to create electronics - Given that we can carry a maximum of 125 'items' the profit mark up would need to be big enough to make it worth system hopping.
5: 'free ports' between systems where commodities unavailable elsewhere can be found, They might also stock some basics that are very cheap and some that are very expensive making them part of a 'good' trade run for those who enjoy trading but needing work to visit. They might also have a role in the contraband sub-culture!




Edited BB code!!


[Edited on 4-9-2013 by DaveK]

[Capt_Caveman]

1 - What kinds of changes, additions, or deletions, if any, would you like to see made to the multiplayer system? Keep in mind that the long term Evochron design structure of being able to transition from single player to multiplayer would likely be retained, so differences between the two modes will always generally be kept to a minimum as has been done in the past.

-The abillity to destroy secondary stations (my number one real request)

2 - Should saving game progress only be allowed at dock points such as stations and cities? If not, are there any other changes you would want to see in the saving system.

-No change

3 - Would you prefer a game that focused more on pure combat, exploration, trade, or include a relatively equal mix of these elements without any one particular element being a primary focus of the game?

-Equal mix

4 - Would you like to see an extensive crafting system as a design priority? That is, many gameplay items (and maybe even a few secret ones) could be built using a pattern of materials/elements/commodities? If so, would it be worth the extended development time/delay to implement it?

-Yes, Please

5 - Should 'jump drives' continue with the current space folding point-to-point approach, or should they revert to simply high speed drives (as found in Arvoch Alliance)?

-No change unless planets and systems become larger, then extend max range per jump by same percentage as planet/system size increase

6 - Should Fulcrum Torpedoes remain in a SW3DG space-sim or should they be removed entirely?

-No opinion

7 - How would you like to see the combat systems changed (or not changed)? This includes weapon damage, firing rate, and range balances. Along the same lines, should missiles do more damage, less damage, have more range, or shorter range? Again, please be specific. And if there are systems where you don't want to see changes, make sure to list those as well.

-No change

8 - Would you like to see fairly realistic planet sizes be implemented (they would likely be about 500-1000% larger than they are now minimum, with each planet covering up to and beyond 5 sectors of the current scaling system each)? This would also require increasing the game's universe size significantly to accommodate the larger planets, so even every sector would probably be around 10X times larger in size. Details aren't required in this thread, that can be reserved for the other thread about planet scaling and in question 9 below (which doesn't necessarily relate to larger planet sizes).

-Larger, Yes please

9 - What kinds of things would you like to see added for planet-side options? Examples that are under consideration include automated farming equipment (that would work similar to current automated mining equipment), city/outpost construction, terraforming (installing atmosphere processors), transporting colonists to new cities/outposts (or at least protecting/escorting the ships that do), discovery and charting (with credit rewards), and surveying new worlds (with required equipment item(s)).

-Yes to all

10 - Should terrain walkers remain a part of a SW3DG space-sim or would you prefer resources be devoted solely to focusing on spacecraft options/technology?

-Keep the walkers

11 - Should piloting capital ships be added to such a game? If so, describe how you would like to see them be part of the -relevant- Evochron gameplay equation (ie lone wolf style mercenary approach, not 'table top' RTS or fleet micro-management).

-No opinion other than space could get crowded

12 - What changes/additions would you like to see in such a game's economy/market system relative to how EM's is set up now? Please be as specific as you can (items, trade locations, values, etc).

-The abillity to destroy secondary stations (my number one real request)
-AI law enforcement and consequences for breaking the law
-Black Market items with consequences for getting caught (being scanned by AI)

[Edited on 9-6-2013 by capt_cronic]

[Austin]

1 - What kinds of changes, additions, or deletions, if any, would you like to see made to the multiplayer system? Keep in mind that the long term Evochron design structure of being able to transition from single player to multiplayer would likely be retained, so differences between the two modes will always generally be kept to a minimum as has been done in the past.

<FONT COLOR="00FF00"> - I have always loved the way you have made transitions from SP to MP and back seamless, but I'd like to see changes in the Clan system control as well. My biggest issue with that is making clans feel they need to construct the maximum amount of stations, in which case they'll start hiding them +/- 100 sector up and down. Then they just linger if a new clan takes over, and will help preventing indies from building free trade stations.</FONT>

2 - Should saving game progress only be allowed at dock points such as stations and cities? If not, are there any other changes you would want to see in the saving system.\\

<FONT COLOR="00FF00"> - Nope. As an explorer of the immense galaxy you've created, being able to quick save out in the dark when I feel I need to is an immense blessing. Running into a star or planet or even a rogue asteroid field could ruin hour(s) of travel so limiting saving to planets or stations, to me, seems like a bad way to go.</FONT>

3 - Would you prefer a game that focused more on pure combat, exploration, trade, or include a relatively equal mix of these elements without any one particular element being a primary focus of the game?

<FONT COLOR="00FF00"> - I love the fact Evochron is already a beautiful mix of these gameplay styles and doesn't limit players to one way or another. Please never change this aspect, because I feel it is made the Evochron series what it is, an open sand box where you can do what you what to do as you like.</FONT>

4 - Would you like to see an extensive crafting system as a design priority? That is, many gameplay items (and maybe even a few secret ones) could be built using a pattern of materials/elements/commodities? If so, would it be worth the extended development time/delay to implement it?

<FONT COLOR="00FF00"> - (drooling) I would so love to see an extensive crafting system. Some here already know I've trying literally every combination of materials, even down to the amounts I used, to craft "nanites"... :/ And in the future it would be awesome to see such hard work pay of in discovering secret items!!!</FONT>

5 - Should 'jump drives' continue with the current space folding point-to-point approach, or should they revert to simply high speed drives (as found in Arvoch Alliance)?

<FONT COLOR="00FF00"> - I'm very happy with the current jump drive system. Granted the AA version adds some immersion, think of how long it would take to travel from known systems to points beyond, especially if it come down to expanding the size of the EvoVerse.</FONT>

6 - Should Fulcrum Torpedoes remain in a SW3DG space-sim or should they be removed entirely?

<FONT COLOR="00FF00"> - As they are now, they are just trading fodder. Do away with the timer or remove them. I don't care. They are just a way of making extra money these days. I liked them as they were before, with no timer. I don't mind the warning system though. As far as I am concerned only people who couldn't adapt to these weapons... and people who used them without restraint ruined this wonderful WMD for all.</FONT>

7 - How would you like to see the combat systems changed (or not changed)? This includes weapon damage, firing rate, and range balances. Along the same lines, should missiles do more damage, less damage, have more range, or shorter range? Again, please be specific. And if there are systems where you don't want to see changes, make sure to list those as well.

<FONT COLOR="00FF00"> - Nope. I had to adapt to the new combat system after the expansion, and finally, I'm happy the way it is. I suppose you could try to make the AI more adaptive. Once we start learning there tricks they change them, or something to that effect.</FONT>

8 - Would you like to see fairly realistic planet sizes be implemented (they would likely be about 500-1000% larger than they are now minimum, with each planet covering up to and beyond 5 sectors of the current scaling system each)? This would also require increasing the game's universe size significantly to accommodate the larger planets, so even every sector would probably be around 10X times larger in size. Details aren't required in this thread, that can be reserved for the other thread about planet scaling and in question 9 below (which doesn't necessarily relate to larger planet sizes).

<FONT COLOR="00FF00"> - It would be neat to see such big planets, but I'd be happier seeing more variety in the EvoVerse. More Blackholes, more Gas planets, asteroid caves, nebula, etc. I wouldn't mind bigger stars either, but as far as planets go, I believe that can be reserved for the next question.</FONT>

9 - What kinds of things would you like to see added for planet-side options? Examples that are under consideration include automated farming equipment (that would work similar to current automated mining equipment), city/outpost construction, terraforming (installing atmosphere processors), transporting colonists to new cities/outposts (or at least protecting/escorting the ships that do), discovery and charting (with credit rewards), and surveying new worlds (with required equipment item(s)).

<FONT COLOR="00FF00"> - As far as planet side options go, I'd just like to see some more variation. More plant life on habitable planets, more signs of life, and yes... even ships trying to kill me while exploring. That doesn't seem to happen at all after I go into my TW. Also, it would be pretty amazing to build cities and have them destroyed much the same way stations are as well.</FONT>

10 - Should terrain walkers remain a part of a SW3DG space-sim or would you prefer resources be devoted solely to focusing on spacecraft options/technology?

<FONT COLOR="00FF00"> - Don't ever remove terrain walkers! Please! It's added a level of exploration that only Evochron can deliver! It is so awesome to find a new planet or even visit known planets, and be able to land and stomp around on them!</FONT>

11 - Should piloting capital ships be added to such a game? If so, describe how you would like to see them be part of the -relevant- Evochron gameplay equation (ie lone wolf style mercenary approach, not 'table top' RTS or fleet micro-management).

<FONT COLOR="00FF00"> - Meh, even if you did, it wouldn't perk my interest any. I'll let others discuss this one. But as far as I'm concerned, flying my little tiny space crafts through space is more than enough for me </FONT>

12 - What changes/additions would you like to see in such a game's economy/market system relative to how EM's is set up now? Please be as specific as you can (items, trade locations, values, etc).

<FONT COLOR="00FF00"> - This one I'm not so sure. This whole black market thing seems interesting. The fact is once you find a good trade route, you can't be stopped from making serious bank, and I'd like to see that go out the window. Some serious fluxuation even in the systems you think you can make a good profit. I'd like to see some serious unpredictability. It would definitely make mining and constantly looking for trade routes a major necessity.</FONT>

[HawkEye11]

Questions:

1 - What kinds of changes, additions, or deletions, if any, would you like to see made to the multiplayer system? Keep in mind that the long term Evochron design structure of being able to transition from single player to multiplayer would likely be retained, so differences between the two modes will always generally be kept to a minimum as has been done in the past.

Answer:
+Feature Addition+ Killing AI's in a system raises clan % {value to be determined by server operator}
In my opinion this would allow clans a more fluid and fun way to put the time and effort into building a empire in addition to the option of performing contracts. I ask that this feature be given very high priority, I would like to see this in a upcoming patch. Thanks!

Any space station built that has a [] clan tag written into it's name can only be built within a 3 dimensional radius of 20 sectors of a star(or more 20 is a suggestion), this will alleviate the problem of clans feeling they have to spam stations where none will ever find them. I ask that this feature be taken as a very high priority,

2 - Should saving game progress only be allowed at dock points such as stations and cities? If not, are there any other changes you would want to see in the saving system.

3 - Would you prefer a game that focused more on pure combat, exploration, trade, or include a relatively equal mix of these elements without any one particular element being a primary focus of the game?

4 - Would you like to see an extensive crafting system as a design priority? That is, many gameplay items (and maybe even a few secret ones) could be built using a pattern of materials/elements/commodities? If so, would it be worth the extended development time/delay to implement it?

5 - Should 'jump drives' continue with the current space folding point-to-point approach, or should they revert to simply high speed drives (as found in Arvoch Alliance)?

Answer: I would like the option of both. Each with it's advantages and disadvantages.

6 - Should Fulcrum Torpedoes remain in a SW3DG space-sim or should they be removed entirely?

7 - How would you like to see the combat systems changed (or not changed)? This includes weapon damage, firing rate, and range balances. Along the same lines, should missiles do more damage, less damage, have more range, or shorter range? Again, please be specific. And if there are systems where you don't want to see changes, make sure to list those as well.

Answer: I would like to see more physics applied to the missiles and particle weapons.

The missiles need the most improvement. Right now their physics profile is very simple, I think that it would be better if they acted in a more realistic way. Acceleration and vectoring don't really matter (I think they are very fun as they are); BUT the missile's max velocity and it's velocity relative to its point of origin should be improved. Right now: missiles cap at a certain speed depending on the missile and they do not take on the speed as the ship firing the missile.

Player built missiles need much more range, a bit more yield, aforementioned improvement in physics and more speed.
An improvement in the particle weapons would be a much easier fix: By greatly increasing the speed of particle weapons. Doing this would remove the physically impossible bullet arc that is currently observed at high speed; and the bullet arc would only be present at the fastest of achievable speeds. It can be argued that increasing the bullet speed would greatly change the tactical landscape of the PvP battlefield so this change to the game should be discussed more I think.

It would be very nice to see a very large increase in the range of all particle weapons; keep the MDTS the same. Allow the MDTS to try and hit targets beyond it's maximum effective range to a certain % of accuracy that is inverse and exponential to the range to target, and to a point where it won't hit anything at all without manual override.
Increase the range of the beam weapons, to suit the new max range of particle weapon, and decrease the yield of lasers some.

It would be very cool if missiles and other hardpoint equipped items could be stacked in the cargo hold. This would allow non-combat oriented pilots a chance to contribute to the fight by providing logistical support. Resupplying their buddies on the front line; this would give more use to civilian frames during battles and wars.


8 - Would you like to see fairly realistic planet sizes be implemented (they would likely be about 500-1000% larger than they are now minimum, with each planet covering up to and beyond 5 sectors of the current scaling system each)? This would also require increasing the game's universe size significantly to accommodate the larger planets, so even every sector would probably be around 10X times larger in size. Details aren't required in this thread, that can be reserved for the other thread about planet scaling and in question 9 below (which doesn't necessarily relate to larger planet sizes).

Answer: I would really like to see this increase in planet size and also an increase in the distance between things. I think that it would be very nice to see more realistic gravity effects as well; enough so that when you turn of IDS you really feel the effects. It should be a benefit to orbit a gravity well than to use IDS to fight it. It would be really cool if some stations acted as satelities; and made simple orbits around planets and star.

9 - What kinds of things would you like to see added for planet-side options? Examples that are under consideration include automated farming equipment (that would work similar to current automated mining equipment), city/outpost construction, terraforming (installing atmosphere processors), transporting colonists to new cities/outposts (or at least protecting/escorting the ships that do), discovery and charting (with credit rewards), and surveying new worlds (with required equipment item(s)).

Answer: The option of building planet side constructions would be very nice. I would say set a predetermined number of outposts that can be constructed on a planets surface.

All the options listed so far sound very good I would like to add one more: Planet-side outpost.

This outpost generates revenue for the player in much the same way as the C/Fs that I write about further down the page, except with obvious differences. This outpost is defended by some ai terrain walkers. It has a landing dock like the one found in a city but lower to the ground and is surrounded by a pentagon or hexagon shaped set of walls.

It has an array of turret batteries that are constructed and repaired by adding resources to the outpost. These turrets can only only be destroyed with the cooperation of at least 2-3 players. Like the C/F i mention later this outpost can be traded and renamed. Like the C/F and ordinary trade stations this outpost allows a clan to maintain percentage, so it will be in the interest of clans to raid these bases when they invade a system.

More things on the planets surface to shoot in general would be very welcoming and I do mean anything. Buildings to attack would be cool but i would settle for painted targets at this point.

10 - Should terrain walkers remain a part of a SW3DG space-sim or would you prefer resources be devoted solely to focusing on spacecraft options/technology?

Answer: I really like the terrain walkers they are a fun addition. My only recommendation would be to add AI controlled walkers for my friends and I to shoot.


11 - Should piloting capital ships be added to such a game? If so, describe how you would like to see them be part of the -relevant- Evochron gameplay equation (ie lone wolf style mercenary approach, not 'table top' RTS or fleet micro-management).

Answer: I think that adding a the ability to drive a capital ship would be a fun feature. It would certainly draw more people to the game or back to the game. It would be nice to enter the Cap ship and dock like we do in a station, and then pilot it.

After unlocking the player can order the cap ship to follow or move to a certain position, it attacks any enemies within it's range. In addition to fighters and other capital ships: capital ship should be able to destroy space stations.

When not in the same sector as your capital ship, you call it in by deploying a nav beacon with the deploy constructor. The amount of time it takes for your cap ship to arrive depends upon how far away it is.

12 - What changes/additions would you like to see in such a game's economy/market system relative to how EM's is set up now? Please be as specific as you can (items, trade locations, values, etc).

Answers to 11 and 12:
+Feature Addition+Command Station/Factory: Description: New large player built station that costs very much a to be determined amount of money and provides a few new options and benefits to the player.

These stations are like trade stations in that they have the typical wares available depending upon where in the universe they are located and what the local economy and tech level may be, exactly and just like a trade station would. But in addition to trading the local trade commodities this station makes some of it's own to fill its inventory and sells them ; Generating revenue.

Since this very large station has many of its own automated production lines and the fact that all the labor affairs are handled and distributed by the local governance or guilds and also for the collection of raw materials: these stations are hands free after being built and the profits are transmitted directly into your account like a system payment cycle. Like a trade station, after being built you get something similar to a station license but its actually your majority share and none else can buy one from the station but it can be traded p2p and the name of the station can be edited by the majority owner.

Every C/F station built increases the revenue of other C/F stations already built and they increase it's revenue somewhat. This is because the extra variety of goods you are now producing by having more stations and the logistical network between those stations, allows for all your C/Fs to stock their shelves with your own products universe-wide instead of depending on outside sources.

Included in the expenses of this station are the maintenance and insurance costs of a capital ship and fighter escort to defend the station. The initial cost of the ships are covered in the price of the station. Stealthed ships are detected by a proximity sensor when they attempt to detonate the station and so the escorting fleet must be destroyed before attempting to destroy this station.

It would be very cool if there was an array of particle turret batteries protecting the station as well: these turrets are powerful, strong and to have all destroyed efficiently you would need at least 2-3 pilots on the assault. Also these turrets are built and maintained/repaired by supplying the necessary amount of materials to the mother station.


Edit: Added one more suggestion under #7.


[Edited on 10-28-2013 by HawkEye11]

[goodgimp]

Comments from a player without too much experience:

1. Mostly just "Quality of Life" stuff. It'd be nice if there were more intuitive ways to join a clan, find clanmates, or join their servers.

2. Only at dock points, or add a monetary penalty on death (or loss of ship) as opposed to reverting to save.

3. I like an equal mix.

4. Yes, I love crafting.

5. I haven't played Arvoch but I have no problems with Evo implementation.

6. Cannot comment.

7. I'm not experienced enough with the combat intricacies to comment.

8. I'd love that, yes. I have no problem if massive planets = fewer planets.

9. Being able to construct a base would be cool, ferry colonists to it, etc.

10. I think they're cool.

11. I would not mind seeing piloted capital ships at all. I know you mention lone-wolf but it would be cool if they could be crewed by your friends in coop, like how gun-linking works.

[ELiTe]

I'm playing mostly SP, and also rather new compared to everyone else. The following are just my opinions.

1 - What kinds of changes, additions, or deletions, if any, would you like to see made to the multiplayer system? Keep in mind that the long term Evochron design structure of being able to transition from single player to multiplayer would likely be retained, so differences between the two modes will always generally be kept to a minimum as has been done in the past.

The only thing I can think of for MP portion is to remove the "leeching" ability. Currently as long as we're in the same sector as another player doing contracts we'd get the same rewards even if we do NOTHING to help. IMHO it'd be better if only players in a group (clan-linked) get the said rewards. The rest of us are only bystanders.

Also, the side-effect of the current system is, if someone else is already having an active contract, I can't take one in that system. So I have to go somewhere else instead.

2 - Should saving game progress only be allowed at dock points such as stations and cities? If not, are there any other changes you would want to see in the saving system.

My opinion is keep the current method. Allowing save at any point as compared to only at docking stations will eliminate hours of frustrations if you had precious cargo to deliver, fight off hordes of pirates and then you die just 200m out from a station. Then you'd have to repeat that 2 hour run you just had.

3 - Would you prefer a game that focused more on pure combat, exploration, trade, or include a relatively equal mix of these elements without any one particular element being a primary focus of the game?

My opinion is a mix rather than a focus on one or another area

4 - Would you like to see an extensive crafting system as a design priority? That is, many gameplay items (and maybe even a few secret ones) could be built using a pattern of materials/elements/commodities? If so, would it be worth the extended development time/delay to implement it?

That would be great! Maybe the player can craft a "slightly better" version of engine/wings/frames as compared to the stock ones you buy from stations, as an example. Not too much better, just a little better. When I say slightly better, I mean for example, right now you're using Engine 6. If you craft an Engine 6, it'd be a slightly better version of Engine 6, but not good enough to be Engine 7.

An alternative idea - maybe the player could have a new skill attribute and this would affect the results of his crafted item. Then, the player could potentially create an Engine 6 that is as good as, or even better, than the stock Engine 7.

5 - Should 'jump drives' continue with the current space folding point-to-point approach, or should they revert to simply high speed drives (as found in Arvoch Alliance)?

How about making a new Engine/jump drive available in-game? Player can either have both or 1 or the other to put into their equipment slots?

6 - Should Fulcrum Torpedoes remain in a SW3DG space-sim or should they be removed entirely?

I have no opinion on this. Sorry But for now, to me, it's the ultimate nuke weapon, able to decimate everything within 4km of you. I almost never use it so I don't know if people consider it to be too powerful.

7 - How would you like to see the combat systems changed (or not changed)? This includes weapon damage, firing rate, and range balances. Along the same lines, should missiles do more damage, less damage, have more range, or shorter range? Again, please be specific. And if there are systems where you don't want to see changes, make sure to list those as well.

Again, I've no good opinions to offer for this. To me it's fine as it is now

8 - Would you like to see fairly realistic planet sizes be implemented (they would likely be about 500-1000% larger than they are now minimum, with each planet covering up to and beyond 5 sectors of the current scaling system each)? This would also require increasing the game's universe size significantly to accommodate the larger planets, so even every sector would probably be around 10X times larger in size. Details aren't required in this thread, that can be reserved for the other thread about planet scaling and in question 9 below (which doesn't necessarily relate to larger planet sizes).

It would be good if this is implemented, but it's fine if it's not.

9 - What kinds of things would you like to see added for planet-side options? Examples that are under consideration include automated farming equipment (that would work similar to current automated mining equipment), city/outpost construction, terraforming (installing atmosphere processors), transporting colonists to new cities/outposts (or at least protecting/escorting the ships that do), discovery and charting (with credit rewards), and surveying new worlds (with required equipment item(s)).

Related to planets, my opinion is that they could do with more types of "side quests" available on planets to do more stuff on-planet (in addition to what is mentioned above). Like maybe a courier mission, or a seek-and-destroy one, all on-planet requiring the use of a walker. If possible, a player should be able to spend hours on a planet just doing planet-quests too, just like how we can spend hours in just 1 sector doing missions.

Even cooler still if there's a short chain of missions on-planet, eg transport people from planet A to planet B in the same (or different system) and then those people asking you to help them terraform or chart the area etc.

10 - Should terrain walkers remain a part of a SW3DG space-sim or would you prefer resources be devoted solely to focusing on spacecraft options/technology?

Yes please keep the walkers

11 - Should piloting capital ships be added to such a game? If so, describe how you would like to see them be part of the -relevant- Evochron gameplay equation (ie lone wolf style mercenary approach, not 'table top' RTS or fleet micro-management).

I'm not an RTS or strategy kind of player so I have no opinion to offer for this. If this were implemented in EM, I have no doubt I'd be skipping this portion completely. Just don't force the player into completing a mission requiring him to do a mission with him in control of a capital ship

12 - What changes/additions would you like to see in such a game's economy/market system relative to how EM's is set up now? Please be as specific as you can (items, trade locations, values, etc).

I only thought that EM lacked a black-market economy for the same items available "legally" when I first started. I can easily be a pirate, kill a cargo ship, loot their cargo, and fly into a station and sell it off without even the cops raising an eyebrow. Would be nice if such items were somehow "known" to be stolen and the stations/cities would not accept any trades relating to them. Thus I would be forced to look for more shady systems to fence my stolen cargo.

[Edited on 2-11-2013 by ELiTe]

[Edited on 2-11-2013 by ELiTe]

[Nigel_Strange]

1. I don't do multiplayer.

2. I like to save anywhere. Sometimes I go on really long trips and need to save.

3. I like all three, as long as they balance. Mix it up.

4. Extensive crafting would be an interesting feature, but not a priority. Finding secret items is as much fun as building them. They would also have to be special enough to warrant the secrecy.

5. Jump drives are good for getting around. High speed drives would have to be MUCH faster to work between systems. Perhaps having both systems would be useful: jump drives for moving many sectors, and speed drives for within a sector or system. I would like to see jump drives that are not so limited to 5 or 10 sectors though: if you have the fuel, you should be able to jump the distance in one jump.

6. Fulcrum torpedoes are fun, but useless. I sometimes buy one and let it off in a cloud of reds just to watch them pop, but they do not add significantly to the game. Maybe they could be used as illicit trade goods.

7. Combat is pretty good as is. I would like to be able to select subsystems of fighters to more damage to engines/weapons/nav/ etc., so that the system targeted takes more damage. It would also be cool to be able to disable a craft without destroying it, and then maybe towing it for salvage. I would like to see foes with the same limited hardpoints as I have: no more than eight missiles per ship. Foes should also take the same time to lock onto me as it takes for me to lock onto them. Maybe stronger lasers would be better. As it is, I almost never use them. Longer missile ranges would be good, too.

8. I would like to see larger planets. It would be preferable if the planets had more cities on them, and if gravity could be implemented on an acceleration model such that orbits and aerial flight models could be more detailed.

9. All of the planetside activities would be nice. There should be more focus on planets, since that is where people are supposed to live. In the current game, though, there is almost no sign of life on them. It seems strange. More cities, more traffic (air/ground) more contracts to move people, farming, construction. I especially like surveying, and the ability to create new colonies on previously uncharted planets. I would like to name colonies that I establish.

10. Terrain walkers are not a priority for me.

11. Piloting capital ships would be interesting. It would require a whole new method, though, of gameplay. It would not need to be RTS style, but moving around a battlefield would be limited. You should be able to capitalize on commerce, though, by buying and selling huge quantities of goods (not limited to what you can currently carry in a fighter). I'm thinking thousands of tons of commodities. You should be able to "park" your fighter inside (or on) your capital ship, so that you can go out and defend it if it is attacked. The ship should also have turrets (auto-controlled, I think) for self defense. The ship should also have much longer jump range than the current fighter jump systems. It might be interesting to be able to man the turrets as well. Commerce with planets or stations would need to be handled by making orders and then waiting for workers ships to load or unload the ship, since you can't dock these giant ships...so there might be contracts for defending the loading/unloading operations, and you might also partake in the defense of loading/unloading your own capital ship.

12. The market system should allow players to find and exploit economic opportunities that make sense in a real universe. If there is a famine, it should be possible for a player to bring food to a system at elevated cost. Money should be incentive enough to move goods, otherwise, the goods will not move. Currently, I trade mostly in Platinum, for raw materials, and buy and sell according to location or licenses, and there does not seem to be a rationale behind the price differences. I would also like to see more of everything for sale at a particular station or city. They should not run out of machine units just because one fighter bought 25. There are thousands of people in these stations...surely they can produce more than a few units of each type of commodity. Enlarging the amount of stuff that you can buy would fit right in with using capital ships to move stuff between systems. You could buy, for instance, 5000 units of water cheap from Sapphire, and then sell it in Ares. Ares might not have a huge economy, but they might need water badly enough to pay premium for it.

[krm398]

Hi, I was sent here to add any comments and suggestions for your game. The questions I see here cover a lot, but not everything that could be changed or added. Like:

1) capturing enemy ships ...it could be done a variety of ways.
A) disabling them with gunfire until they are non-functioning and the pilot is forced to eject. This is the combat option, shoot it until it gives up
B) computer hacking...this means the shields must be down first and you need to be close, a mile or less and then stay there until it either works..Maybe 2-5 minutes depending on ship size/computer complexity, or you get killed.
C) Boarding, can only be done from ships with a transporter beam and crew, a ship with 2 crew members other than the Captain can not win against a ship with a bigger crew...so it balances itself out. the only way to get a bigger more powerful ship would be to hire professional mercs to go over, a regular assault crew, then they'd need paid, just like now until they get used, again balancing the idea some more.

2) more planetary interaction..the walkers which I've only seen on a video so far look cool if they can be used for prospecting and salvage jobs on planets. If a ship crashed into a planet, a wreck is made of size equal to the ships mass..roughly..and if you find it there might be some things still usable like guns and engines or shield generators. That makes a new class for Captains wanting to do trading...Salvager.

3) I think any game needs balance so making anything pure combat or pure trading would be a mistake, that's simple enough to understand, all things in balance..

4) ships need more specialization...a fighter is not made to do mining or freight hauling a freighter is..simple to see and understand. in the game I'm playing no EM..the starter ship can be maxed out to haul as much as a freighter which would mean they technically dont exist. It can mine and carry as much cargo as any ship in the game, making it seem that the only reason to get a bigger ship is to see something different on the load screen where you choose your pilot. Fighters should be made to fight, freighters to haul cap ships to attack and defend systems and so on, making the set up universal so anything does anything makes no sense. And robs the players of any reason to try and advance themselves.As a Trader myself I can see that mining is and easy way to make some money, as is combat missions, but Traders aren't combat pilots exactly. They might carry missiles for defense but they wont stay and fight if attacked, they jump away so having a ship with maximum cargo and the armor and shields of a corvette class is a very expensive freighter..nothing more.

[FuryMGS]

3 - Would you prefer a game that focused more on pure combat, exploration, trade, or include a relatively equal mix of these elements without any one particular element being a primary focus of the game?

Combat is perfect the way it is right now, I think, with the exception of the way missiles are spammed by the enemies maybe. I played Darkstar One when I was younger and I didn't like it much but I did like the contraband system, as well as the mechanics involved in it, the fact that you were scanned by the police in order to determine if you were a smuggler, and the principle of using modules to create a fake manifest of your cargo, with a chance of success depending of the quality of the module ... Exploration seems a bit weak to me. I haven't really payed much attention to the story so far and focused on upgrading my ship and exploring a little. The only hidden thing I could find was a station inside an asteroid, and there wasn't anything special about it save for its peculiar location if I recall correctly. The caches locations seem to be mostly things I could buy myself so I didn't payed much attention to it either. Maybe I just have to explore more to find really interesting things, though.


8 - Would you like to see fairly realistic planet sizes be implemented (they would likely be about 500-1000% larger than they are now minimum, with each planet covering up to and beyond 5 sectors of the current scaling system each)? This would also require increasing the game's universe size significantly to accommodate the larger planets, so even every sector would probably be around 10X times larger in size. Details aren't required in this thread, that can be reserved for the other thread about planet scaling and in question 9 below (which doesn't necessarily relate to larger planet sizes).

I don't really see the point right now, as I haven't seen many things to do on planets that would require to augment their size. That's another problem of the game right now, save for mining there isn't much to do on them. I don't really know what to add, though, but I liked the idea of caves, that sort of things.


11 - Should piloting capital ships be added to such a game? If so, describe how you would like to see them be part of the -relevant- Evochron gameplay equation (ie lone wolf style mercenary approach, not 'table top' RTS or fleet micro-management).

My answer will be a little long and will also answer to some other questions you asked. Did someone here play Battlecruiser Millenium Gold ? It is pretty old and is considered by a number of players who tried it as one of the worst game ever made, but mostly because it is so buggy and unfinished. I actually played it and found it to be very interesting with a Capital Ship. The managment of your crew (with health, irradiations, gear, function and level of efficiency in their task ...), the managment of the power levels, the different parts of the ship which could be destroyed or repaired, the possibility of launching fighters in battle ... The crew would be composed of your officers, your fighter pilots, some marines in case you were boarded or wanted to board another ship ... You could be boarded by intruders who would engage your crew and sabotage certain parts of your ship, and even try to escape with one of your expensive shuttle, but you could foil their plan by cutting power to the launch pad ... You could pilot the CS yourself or engage the autopilot, its effectiveness depending of the efficiency level of your officers ... So much possibilities. This is by far the most complete sim I played until now, and that's really too bad that this is so unfinished. I would have liked a way to directly control your character inside your ship when you were boarded, as you could also leave your ship and wander around with various weapons and that sort of thing, but hey ... So, I think this really is something you should look into for the implementation of CS.


IMPORTANT EDIT : I forgot to mention something. I don't know if this has been discussed in the past, but something that bothered me in the game was how the ship personalisation upgraded more your ship than personalised it. Different modules with different effects would have been great. For example, instead of having only shield modules acting as upgrades when compared to previous ones, we could have a module allowing for a faster recharge but less strenght, another one for more strenght but less recharge, one which would mitigate damages the more it's solicited, something like that.

[Edited on 11-17-2013 by FuryMGS]

[Edited on 11-17-2013 by FuryMGS]

[hank]

The items with no response I feel the game has about right or I don't have any good suggestions.

7 - ...

Regarding combat, I would like to see capital ship fleets instead of the lone ship cruising through space with fighter cover. I would assume space fleets would mimic earthbound naval fleets where a carrier would be flanked by destroyers, cruisers and battlecruisers of varying compositions.

I have mentioned this before but got negative responses. I still believe the larger combat ships should have at least one but no more than two crew members depending on ship size. The smaller fighters have only a pilot. I know many people like the feel of being in single seat fighters but for long treks across the universe in large ships such as the Chimera, a crew member is needed IMHO. Crew training should also be included for the less experienced crew to advance their skills into engineering or weapons systems. If this means having two types of combat craft such as fighters (single pilot ships) and bombers, then add that option.

8 - ...

I would like to see planet sizes more realistic. I would like to see larger suns with orbiting planets and moons orbiting around the planets. This may not be possible because it would dramatically affect how you jump to locations near your destination.

I like what Destro posted about planet sizes. I've played many hours of Pioneer and you really get the feel of how big the Universe is. Pioneer uses time acceleration; EM uses folded space jumps to overcome the time to travel from A to B in a reasonable amount of RL time.

On a similar topic, ringed planets should have some small asteroids incorporated inside the rings. The "fireflies" you fly through are good to keep for the bulk of the rings to give you the feel of flying through them but junk like rocks should be in the rings also to give you objects to avoid crashing into.

9 - ...

Colonization would be great. It would open up a whole new set of functions for the civilian class ships. They would require cargo facilities for transporting people, equipment and resources to support their endeavours.

I know there would have to be compromise to keep processing speed up but more vegetation, forests, etc. would be nice where appropriate but not at the expense of game speed. Colonization would required building of settlements which would help populate the planets with structures. In remote space sectors on planets with harsh environments, domed or inclosed settlements should be added.

Colonization opens up a whole new set of questions. You would have to colonize in phases (landing / basic life support; subsequent units added for living, medical, entertainment, science, etc) with each phase requiring separate modules transported to the surface. The larger colonies would take dozens of trips or team work between pilots to get a facility up and running.

Having terrain walkers is required for this suggestion. (item 10)

11 - Should piloting capital ships be added to such a game? If so, describe how you would like to see them be part of the -relevant- Evochron gameplay equation (ie lone wolf style mercenary approach, not 'table top' RTS or fleet micro-management).

I don't have a good recommendation for this one or a strong feeling for or against. I played a lot of Homeworld 2 (and Complex) and a system like that with the ability to walk around inside the ship, land your smaller ships in the hanger, etc. would be fun. Piloting could be by waypoints ... but the system for navigation becomes difficult to visualize for my old mind.



[Edited on 11-26-2013 by hank]

[Kursah]

Answers:

1 - I don't play much multiplayer, but judging from the up and down of the MP cycle something should be added to provide a little more life and access. My experience in MP mostly stems from my EL days...and they were really fun. The ability to transfer seamlessly from SP to MP has a strong point. I suppose the best way to get more people in MP would be to offer a (please don't shun me...just thinking out loud) physics-lite-arcady-handling mode. Something that is half way...not all the way disabled, but not full bore like EM is now. Maybe it could be called Evochron Arcade? or Evochron Online? Evochron MP Arcade? Or just Arcade Mode?

My only sentiment here is attracting more people to taking on this game and many finding a source of combat enjoyment faster. I mean for someone like me that isn't consistent with my time with this game, I gotta relearn every year how to handle my craft(s) from my old save(s) or new game(s), which while is good and takes time. Sometimes I want to just hop in and get an arcade fix, and it'd be awesome to do in the Evochron universe. I think it'd be a huge market and draw a lot more people towards the game but I also realize that's not the point of this title. So please don't shun or hate on me...I'm just thinking out loud.

I love this title, and I've been hooked since I first found Legends. It's just after so long of getting my ass handed to me, sometimes I wish I could take a breather and go get into some action that I can handle. Maybe using a mouse + kb layout will be more beneficial for me. I've used PS2 controllers, xbox 360 controllers, and last year a cheap joystick...this year I decided to try the KB + Mouse and so far I like it. But combat is still a challenge, and I realize that once I take the time to figure it all out I'll be a superior fighter in the EvoVerse. MP-wise, it'd be cool to have a lite-version or lite-mode for the noobs and impatient folks. As much as I like to take on the learning curve and become a good pilot in this title, as I said before, sometimes my time-limit or my patience I will either feel bored or frustrated and just want to get in and go. That's about the only reason I keep FS2 open around anymore...but it's just so arcady that it's not nearly as good...that's why I'd like to see something that's a little detuned....maybe that's where Star Citizen will come in? I heard they will be using a half-baked newtonian physics setup? There's so much talk and hype I'm choosing to believe it when I see it with that title...and focus on what's out there now.


2 - I prefer the save whenever and whereever, if anything I'd like a single button quick save instead of alt+f9. Mostly because fumbling around trying to find the keys on my laptop keyboard is a pain and not waking her up when I'm fumbling around is...well...I'm sure some of you understand.

Keep the save anywhere at anytime, maybe add a hardcore mercenary option to the new pilot list (or make it a new option after a pilot reaches certain ranks or levels?) where the only saves are those at friendly stations or stations and cities. Some may appreciate the challenge...I think though that those whom want that challenge will also challenge themselves to only save at those points anyways...but if they had no choice in the matter it may be a positive challenge.


3 - I like how the game has a spread focus, but as stated in number one I would like some more combat options and maybe a hand-holder mode for those of us that just wanna get in and blow enemies up or have a better chance at it. I do get enjoyment out of trade lanes and exploration, but I come in mostly for combat and that's also for me the toughest aspect of the game. So I'd like to see more "easy" combat for beginners, something that teaches them a little more...maybe some training arenas located at various spots in nebulas, on planets, in various wz's, etc. These training or combat arenas could add a new aspect to the game and MP. It could be a very fun implementation and something that could better train noobs like me in combat, and also be adjusted as skill level increases to add challenge and more challenging AI. It could also be a good PvP and CvC MP option. The different physics of on-planet arenas, the interference of in-nebula arenas, and maybe one close to a star so it's gravitational pull could also have some interaction??? or black hole? different challenges that go along with these Arenas?


I like all the aspects you have implemented thus far, but I also want more combat and more easy/noob combat that helps shape me into the combat that this title currently is known for but also is quite challenging to reach. That's why I think maybe the Combat Arena might just work.

4 - That would be very cool. With the onset of games like Minecraft, Terraria and such, there will be a huge influx of gamers and fans if this is executed correctly...regardless of that being a goal or not...the more people that buy this product the more money Vice "should" see and more than deserves and hopefully the more motivation to keeping this all going.

I think it should be optional, but that some more depth should be implemented. That should also mean having a place to stash your resources/elements/commodities, a place in the hangar to craft/test/see what is being done. Which I'm sure is already planned out if not implemented in a not-released version of the game.

I think this should totally be implemented...maybe even going as for to crafting armor for your ships, different crystals for different power and colors of lasers, maybe even different types of fuel for your ship that can affect performance or distance. There are so many aspects that could be affected by this that people could get lost. With the custom ship design being a place I've lost myself for hours before...this crafting is a next logical step imho. With that said I'd like to see a higher-resolution ship design...something like it is now but with a larger screen for showing the ships, and having a little more control over shape or individual items...like the option to size the left wings differently from the right, etc. That might be asking too much, so let's start with a solid crafting system and leave the already awesome ship creation alone!


5 - I like the jump drives, and while I've never experienced Arvoch and it's high speed drives, I'd like to see farther jumps or higher class drives that can go further. Maybe alien technology implemented that can be "found" in special areas or something that would allow mercs to bypass the wormhole gates already in place. This would be nice for those that want to utilize this technology for spying and coming in from an unexpected angle. Having traps set at gates for certain merc missions/storyline missions would be cool (and maybe already implemented...again thinking out loud).


6 - I haven't used these, but from what little I've read it sounds like they're very powerful. I'd say even so, no they should stay. But then as I just said I have no experience with them....so maybe saying no to them leaving is even more ignorant than I'm thinking I'm already being by saying no. lol.


7 - I like the combat systems, I actually just learned to use IDS X2 last night...seems to help quite a bit...why I didn't know this until last night I have no idea! lol. But back to combat systems....so far I like them...really once you learn to read all the systems you know what you're seeing and what's going on...I'd almost say make the energy and hull bars a little fatter. Being a noob again to combat, I kind of wish the beams and lasers had a little further range...but that's probably my inexperience speaking. Missiles seem so limited, even with 8 bays, or using the ones that reload every 3 minutes don't seem to be too much of a game changer in my experience. So really if anything maybe to help a noob like me would be cool..but i have no ideas and I don't want to ruin the game just to make it easier for a few. I'd rather work on the learning curve and become great later.


8 - I do think this should be an option, but maybe a choice? Kind of like preloading planets and what-not. Though 500-1000% larger...I also think that faster drive implementations would be necessary too. Modern PC's and even laptops should be able to handle the load...and I'd be more than welcome to this game taking upwards of 20GB on my system. Honestly I'd make room for it, and I have on my SSD just so it's fast as can be. The cool thing about the more realistic size planets, could be the better terrain, artistic aspects, places to build cities, more weather options.

Maybe a compromise to the +250% or even +100% just to test though? I'd love to see more realistically sized planets and space...so long as I can still get to places quickly. Again for me the excitement of the size would be the access to more content...more cities, more places to explore...imagine having races and battle arenas in grand canyons? calderas? even just around volcanos? Maybe missions to go and stop a volcano from taking out a planet and it's ecosystem would be a cool mission option...I just watched the first 15 min of the most recent Star Trek movie...and thought that might be a cool mission idea. There could be a lot of options, and also changing size to more realistic would be a good feature to tout along with the physics and decades of games behind this one that have helped to make this what it is today among all the other amazing things this title already does. I see going to a realistic size changing a lot of aspects about this game...not necessarily a bad thing but it would making things different...and the universe size more daunting. One may want to program in search and rescue drones for those that get lost so they can refuel or be towed back to the nearest station...the EvoVerse is already quite large...being 1000% larger would be amazing and scary at the same time...but I am VERY interested in it!


9 - All of the above...giving another option that goes alongside space mining, trade lanes, etc... planet management could be a major and very entertaining aspect and option to become involved with or to pay crew/staff to manage. Owning a few lucrative planets could help find resources for crafting, allowing several large cities and 100 towns to be created will create an influx of population, allowing trade lanes between friends and maybe foes could create a strategy aspect to this title all while hopping back in your ship to run those trade lanes or run escort for the trade ships should one of your lanes become compromised, etc. The amount of opportunities for missions and creativity and gaming here is huge and would be a great complement to the larger universe/planet scale imho.


10 - I have never used one...I have had a couple and sold them to upgrade my ship. But I do have some interest. I think if they stay it should only be because of larger planets and the above mentioned extra options for planet management. There should be a mech-crafting area or vehicle crafting area where automated farming, guard, exploring, mining, etc vehicles and mechs could be designed and created. This would add the same personal touch that one has for their ships too. Maybe adding the ability for a clan logo eventually to all ships, and crafts is a good idea too? Or maybe it's already implemented? Again thinking out loud. I think if they stay, it should hinge on larger planets and what you can do on those planets....aaaand if combat arenas were to happen...where even betting could occur (why not?)...custom crafted weapons on custom designed mechs could lead to a whole new aspect in the game! You may even sway some MWO fans over this way. It would I'm sure take a lot of work to do all of this...I'm just thinking of things and typing them down. But it could be a neat implementation. Of course combat outside of arenas should be allowed, but in arenas could be a lucrative and more watched thing...maybe even to the point of having a youtube video recorded and uploaded (or not...I'm not sure about that idea...). But the combat arenas could have the winner taking home a bunch of cash and the loser getting just enough to repair their mech or nothing at all. Battles could be a waged thing too...for land rights, water rights, mineral rights, space rights, etc..


11 - I don't know it would be implemented...I'm not too interested in piloting a capitol ship. I like the smaller more nimble craft in EM. If control was implemented I'd vote for an RTS/table-top style control of them or maybe you could have a squad command to tell them where to go?


12 - I'd like to see a few centralized areas for noobs for suggested trade routes, and even some more lucrative routes in the game that I have had to search the web for. Like a community interface where hidden planets and treasures and myths could be shared. There could be ratings from those that try those routes or find treasures to rate yay or nay so bunk ones could be sorted out. But really beyond that, with me just learning the economy and game again...I'm good with it as-is.

[Arrakkh]

Hi all,
I'm playing evochron since a few days only, It is a great game how it is. Anyway, I try to write in my poor english the improvements I would like to see.



3 - Would you prefer a game that focused more on pure combat, exploration, trade, or include a relatively equal mix of these elements without any one particular element being a primary focus of the game?

I would improve a bit the economic system. Adding more minable resources, and some kind of very rare metal, or resource, minable only from a few planets or asteroids, somewhere in the universe. Very expensive to sell, useful to somehow highly upgrade ships and\\or weapons and equipment.
Otherwise, In one or two distant planets could grow a rare vegetable, like the spice in dune, with the power of highly increase some ship\\weapon ability
(maybe something like this already exist and I didn't discover, if so I apologize)
Another thing: would be nice to add tourist or resort space stations, or tourist settlements on some scenic planet. Once builded, it could give some regular income to the player and\\or to his guild in multiplayer.
Would be nice to see passenger ships going around, loading tourists from the cities and heading to the space resorts. It could give also a new chance to piracy, boarding and pillaging passengers ships could be a good way to get money and become a casus belli between guilds in multiplayer.

4 - Would you like to see an extensive crafting system as a design priority? That is, many gameplay items (and maybe even a few secret ones) could be built using a pattern of materials/elements/commodities? If so, would it be worth the extended development time/delay to implement it?

I like the idea of secret frames and weapons or equipment, hard to discover and to build

5 - Should 'jump drives' continue with the current space folding point-to-point approach, or should they revert to simply high speed drives (as found in Arvoch Alliance)?

I like this feature how it is.

6 - Should Fulcrum Torpedoes remain in a SW3DG space-sim or should they be removed entirely?

don't know.


8 - Would you like to see fairly realistic planet sizes be implemented (they would likely be about 500-1000% larger than they are now minimum, with each planet covering up to and beyond 5 sectors of the current scaling system each)? This would also require increasing the game's universe size significantly to accommodate the larger planets, so even every sector would probably be around 10X times larger in size. Details aren't required in this thread, that can be reserved for the other thread about planet scaling and in question 9 below (which doesn't necessarily relate to larger planet sizes).

I would like, but I wouldn't like too need to buy a new computer to keep playing evochron I mean, increase universe, stars and planet size without decreasing performance.

9 - What kinds of things would you like to see added for planet-side options? Examples that are under consideration include automated farming equipment (that would work similar to current automated mining equipment), city/outpost construction, terraforming (installing atmosphere processors), transporting colonists to new cities/outposts (or at least protecting/escorting the ships that do), discovery and charting (with credit rewards), and surveying new worlds (with required equipment item(s)).

A like all these ideas, plus the tourist stations\\settlements as i wrote before. Some small town or village on planet's surface would be nice to see too. The vegetation on planets seems oversize, too big, and unrealistic. I would like it smaller. Some more kinds of planetary environment would be nice to see too. For example I never saw a lava or vulcanic planet, or a barren planet without athmosphere (like the moons)

10 - Should terrain walkers remain a part of a SW3DG space-sim or would you prefer resources be devoted solely to focusing on spacecraft options/technology?

yes